Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/general 2

Why we can do without trickery

Since I dropped by, I received mails from several people who seem to agree that there is some trickery and framing the enemy going on. Yes, it's well known that this problem exists in the Sri Lanka conflict. I can imagine that for some there may be no refuge against trickery but to resort to the same tactics. This is sad.

But WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has been created as a place for those who want to try a better way. Let me remind you that WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has some built-in mechanisms that make trickery a less successful strategy here:

• We don't count votes, but opinions. This makes it irrelevant if someone uses a sockpuppet for voting.
• We don't count number of reverts per account, but per "reason". This makes sock- and meatpuppets useless for revert warring.
• We have clear standards for how to bring up complaints. This means, hints and allegations are not needed, and they often backfire.
• We have a house rule that allows any project member to remove any off topic talk. This makes our talk page a good place for people who want to focus on good, constructive work.
• We are very transparent in our processes. All decisions and admin actions are open to scrutiny. For instance, by keeping a well sourced list about warnings, we ensure that nobody gets blocked without being properly warned in advance.
• There are always some people here who honestly try to work towards reconciliation. This means, there's always a voice of humanity, and we're not turning into a paper tiger who only pays lipservice to well sounding ideals.

I want to remind all our members to adhere to these ideals, and to make good use of the mechanisms we have in place to uphold them. If you see any behavior that does not fit to our ideal, remind the person politely that this is not the way things are getting done here, and help the person by pointing out how to do it better. (I recommend doing that by e-mail because nobody likes being criticized in public.)

I know that this project is not perfect, but we're all able to learn. If you feel we're missing out on a good chance to improve ourselves, please bring it up here. If you're unhappy about anything related to this project, or about any one of our members, and you don't bring it up in a fair way, you have no one but yourself to blame. --Sebastian (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, Good comment.Teasereds (talk) 02:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As we're now archiving this talk page, should we move this to the project page? — Sebastian 07:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Learning from Palestine-Israel ArbCom case

Resolved

I am an arbcom clerk now. I am the clerk on this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. The similarities in this dispute are strikingly similar to the Sri Lanka dispute (as well as East Europe, Azerbaijan-Azeris, etc). Some of you may want to see how this case goes in order to aid your own efforts and avoid going to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by, and for the heads-up! And congratulations to your new role! I am sure we can learn from other ethnic conflicts, but I also hope that they can learn from us, too. WP:SLR has been pretty effective last year, especially since the Dispute Resolution Agreement was in place, which you selflessly helped to maintain. In 2 months, we resolved 19 content issues, many of which as hard as ArbCom cases - not bad for a group that's much smaller than ArbCom, I must say! — Sebastian 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, learning could go both ways here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Sumoeagle179. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by Sumo's recommendation, I went along and created Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration‎. Of course, I've no idea if this will catch on. Your input at the ArbCom case, or the WikiProject if it comes to life, would be most welcome. Peace, HG | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful! I'm so happy that this idea is spreading, and in particular to the Israel Palestine conflict, which is for me a particularly open wound, since I'm German: I think the actions of my grandparents’ generation fueled a vicious circle that is still spinning there.

I think there's already the first thing we can learn from them: They cut the sentence "This excludes members who have recently engaged in edit wars or sockpuppeteering." I don't remember why this was added in our project, but I propose we cut it. Every member has a right to deny a new membership anyway, and we encourage members to write their criteria on WT:SLR/H#What are we looking for in new members?, so there is no need for that sentence anymore. Any objections? — Sebastian 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This section has been open for seven months, and I'm assuming that the lack of comment is a sign that there are no objections. Therefore, I have removed the sentence from our project page. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in my assumption, as I realise that it's possible that this section (and Sebastian's proposal) simply escaped attention. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Falcon is correct and I support the action. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Something like this for non-SL articles?

Resolved

Wiki Raja's idea of doing something similar for other articles (above, 21:39) deserves a section on its own. I support the idea, but there are some hurdles: It probably couldn't be the same template because that one is specific to Sri Lanka. So we would either need a specif one for the area Wiki Raja proposed, or a generic one. A more fundamental problem is that the agreement is only a tool - it takes people to use it. In our case, we are fortunate to have people from both sides, as well as administrators who are willing to delve into the discussion and understand the issues well enough to be reasonably fair, when it comes to warning and blocking disruptive editors. A good way to provide a home for such diverse people is a WikiProject. Is there a WikiProject already, or would you propose to create one? If there is a project, does it have the right mix of people already? — Sebastian 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you need to have a precedent. We have established that and now another attempt is on in Palestine-Israeli issues. We should suggest it in Village forum, so we can come up with guidelines as to how to create such projects Kanatonian (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Palestine-Israeli conflict is handled differently. First, it's ArbCom that imposes the restrictions, and not the collaboration project. They put their box on the talk page.[1], which means that many editors will not see it. They have more 1RR rules for editors than for articles, and the article restrictions are lifted much faster.[2] I have not seen a discussion or any reasons why they prefer that approach. I am not sure if it is possible to enforce restrictions on editors can work without being backed up by an ArbCom ruling. To be honest, when I see how our highest dispute resolution committe is going back and forward on individual article restrictions, it feels like micromanagement to me. In conclusion, I feel that their approach involves more bureaucracy, and it's not a model for all conflicts since they couldn't keep this level of detailled involvement if they wanted to expand the method to all conflicts. I think that our model could provide a good precedent, but I would prefer to wait a bit till WP:IPCOLL has settled on a modus operandi and we can really make useful comparisons. — Sebastian 06:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this was opened 11 months ago, a workgroup has been bormed to discuss such questions. See WP:WORKINGGROUP. — Sebastian 07:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors in other projects trying to learn from your example

Resolved

• please feel free to move this to a more appropriate spot; I know there is structure to the talk page here that I don't fully understand.

As some of you know, there has been an ongoing discussion of managing political/national/ethnic POV at User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5. It started with some issues surrounding Iran-Iraq War, in which it proved useful to analyze the foreign support to both countries -- and learning quite a bit in the process. Other disputes involve the Balkans and Poland-Lithuania. Several of us have cited SLR as the most successful such dispute resolution that we've found in Wikipedia.

Some may remember that I first learned of your work when there was some confusion about the general use of the term counter-terrorism, and there was an initially strained, but eventually productive exchange.

There's an essay in my userspace,User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-FactsFromPOV that both takes some of my observations on what you are doing, as well as an assortment of other techniques, such as methodologies that intelligence analysts use to glean information from highly POV sources.

If anyone has ideas about how the essay could be more useful, or if there's a place where some of these metadiscussions should go in mainspace, I'd certainly appreciate it. Again, your efforts have my immense respect.

Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice and interesting message! I will look at your essay over the weekend. Cheers, — Sebastian 07:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a bad conscience when I read this now, because I don't remember reading it. — Sebastian 07:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed interesting (and now I remember that I read it back then already). I added a link to it both in our section on reliable sources and in WP:RS. — Sebastian 05:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Voice chat - an idea worth trying?

Stale

(Crossposting)

Hi, here's a thought that might do some good with the Israeli-Palesinian dispute on AE. Today I was chatting with an editor from Serbia. Mentioned the Serbian-Croatian ethnic disputes on en:Wiki and he surprised me by telling me the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedias actually get along pretty well. Basically what happened was some guys packed into a car, drove to Zagreb, and shook some hands. Then some other guys packed into another car, drove to Belgrade, and shook some hands. Once they saw that they were all pretty normal people, things calmed down a lot.

Maybe there's a way we can replicate that. Would you be willing to try a voice chat on Skype? I've noticed that when Wikipedia editors get into a conference call, with voices instead of just text, it's easier to find common ground. Wishing you well, Durova^Charge! 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very open to the idea and find it very interesting. I congratulate the Serbian and Croatian Wikipedians for such a big step - though it took only a few steps. I am thinking of proposing it at Wikipedia:IPCOLL and Wikipedia:SLR as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nicely put - I agree with Fayssal's congratulation. I haven't used Skype yet, but that would be worth a try. Currently, my best time is during the weekend, between 1800 and 0600 UTC. One problem some people may have is privacy - it's probably not safer than standard phone, is it? ---— Sebastian 07:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Classification as "QS"

Resolved

This is in response to the fact tag added to the qualification "anti-rebel", as discussed at #Anton Balasingham article above, but it applies to all qualified sources.

Let's not forget that the the qualification "anti-rebel" was reached in an agreement among involved editors from both sides, rather than based on references. This is only a compromise. If we want to move away from this compromise, we need a thorough discussion that ends with a conclusive decision between one of the following two:

• AT is reliable => reclassify it and remove the qualification whereever disputed.
• AT is not reliable => reclassify it and remove all disputed quotes.

If no such discussion happens then it would be desirable if someone could find a reference saying that Asian Tribune is "anti-rebel" to better comply with our general policy of citing all claims, and to avoid such discussions in the future. Sebastian (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. There is one small problem - Asian Tribune has not been cited by any major sources like BBC. For a source like Tamilnet it would be easy to find that it is a pro rebel source because it gets used in other sources and they have to mention that it is pro-rebel source. On the other hand, it would be hard to find such claims from WP:RS about a website like Asian Tribune because it does not get used by reliable source to cite claims. Watchdogb (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Asian Tribune is not a RS or even QS source by WP:VERIFY, the fact that we allwed it to be used in Wikipedia was a compromise. Maybe we should revist that too? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rights and obligations

Stale

Everyone has rights and obligations...

a) any editor who did not recognize the ANI ruling has the right to remove h/self from the list. The request or the edit of the removal has to be documented somewhere. The page should be unprotected.

b) every editor has the obligation to respect the smooth running of Wikipedia and work in a collaborative way with others. Details about this are found at this project page and the ANI resolutions of late 2007.

c) administrators are here to help make sure a) and b) are being implemented. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what happens when an editor removes himself from a list but is tag-team edit warred back into the list? And admins who're watching over this page continue to watch without so much as attempting to put an end to the nonsense and trolling (yes.. not only reverting to keep my name in that list but also adding me under the "Warned!" list is trolling) And what happens when the tag team includes an editor one month old and from the looks of it being used by someone (any prizes for guessing?) only to tag-team? I do not intend keep removing myself from the list, but it will be in everybody's interest if this can be kept from escalating any further. Sarvagnya 21:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please try to remain calm and to not jump to conclusions. I'm not sure what you meant, but the statement that "it will be in everybody's interest if this can be kept from escalating any further" just doesn't read right. As for the "admins who're watching over this page", Sebastian has not been editing for several days and my watchlist contains way too many pages for me to react immediately to all changes. I'm sorry if you felt ignored, and want to assure you that this is not the case.

Let me ask this: why do you so strongly want to be removed from the list? The list is a tool for the WikiProject to identify editors who were involved with editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented. Your name is listed in the "no-show or inactive" section, so there is no implication that you either accepted the Agreement or rejected it—merely that you did not respond to it (which is carries no automatic positive or negative implications).

I have removed the warning, since the issue was not raised and discussed here. However, I ask that no further edit-warring be done on the project page. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The points by FF and BF are all valid. The list merely documents who was around at the time and who agreed or not. Sarvagnya being on the list or not does not free him from the obligations of being a good wiki citizen; standard wiki remedies are always available. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What is that even supposed to mean? Where did I claim that I am not obliged to be a "good wiki-citizen"? All million or so editors are obliged to be good wiki-citizens. So why dont you put all of them on the list? And that still wouldnt answer my question of why I am on the list. "I was around at the time"... is no reason, my name should be there. I was not "around".. I was only commenting about L and N's blocks on ANI not even on SLR.. I had nothing whatsoever with any 'agreement' or any SLR. Also I was only shown the initial draft of the agreement and I was long gone by the time the initial draft became "final resolution" and got implemented on SLR. And btw... this is User:Gnanapit's contribs from Sep to Nov 07. As you can see, he has next to no contributions on SL-related articles. Can you explain to me why he is also on this list? Sarvagnya 00:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

editconflict response(unindent)why do you so strongly want to be removed from the list? -- And can you tell me why I should be on that list in the first place? Why not any of the other million or so editors? To answer your question anyway.. that troll of a warning you removed explains precisely why I want my name removed from the list. So there is no scope for the likes of Watchdogb and teasereds trolling me with nonsense like this.

However, that is not all. I want to be removed from the list simply because I insist that nobody other than me can speak for me. It simply is not upto any editor, admin or crat to sign me on a list or make me a part of any agreement without my consent. It would be a violation of policy to do so. Putting me under "Inactive"/"No show" would seem to imply that I am/was somehow a part of the process. Which of course, is not true at all. For starters, I was not consulted about any SLR and I have had nothing to say about SLR or any of its in-house proposals. I am not obliged to be a part of this effort or to have an opinion about any of its proposals. Even if I had an opinion, it should not be represented under "Signatories" without my consent. It is a gross misrepresentation of my stance (which is that I have no stance on the matter) to put me under "Signatories" of a proposal I havent the slightest clue about.

Like I told Elonka on my talk page, if you were to put me under a list of "Editors interested in SL topics" or "Editors who have edited SL articles" or even perhaps "Editors who'd like to be intimated of important SL-related discussions" etc., it would be a different matter.

Also, you say - The list is a tool for the WikiProject to identify editors who were involved with editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented. -- Two problems. First, what you state there is not true (can you prove that it is true in my case.. or in Gnanapiti's case.. Gnanapiti for heavens' sake has perhaps not even edited any SL related article!! definitely not any more than you or fayssal or jayjg et al.) and secondly, that list there proclaims something quite different from your "editors who were involved with editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented". Also, what is the point of even having a list of editors who were "editing SL-related articles at the time the Dispute Resolution Agreement was drafted and implemented" if those users had nothing whatsoever to do with the 'agreement 'itself?! Sarvagnya 00:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, incivility ("troll of a warning", "likes of Watchdogb and teasereds") is not acceptable, regardless of whether one's name is on the list and regardless of which section it appears in ("acceptance", "no-show or inactive", or "rejection"). I will ask you again to please calm down.

Sebastian has already explained why your name appears on the list, and I alluded to the reason in my comment. You were an active participant in the AN/I discussion and you did not respond to FayssalF's comment here. (As for why I'm not on the list ... I think it has to do with the fact that I didn't participate in the AN/I discussion, though I have no objection to being added to the list.) Incidentally, you can't really say that you "haven't the slightest clue" about the Agreement since you were notified on your talk page and you posted a comment in response to the proposal.

You write that "nobody other than [you] can speak for [you]", and that is completely correct. However, having your name listed in the "no show or inactive" section does not in any way speak for you, and it does not make you party to the Agreement. It only notes that you were involved in the discussion which gave rise to the Agreement and did not explicitly accept or reject it. Is your only concern the section title "Signatories"? (After all, would you object to other editors mentioning your username on some talk page without your consent?)

It seems to be that you perceive the appearance of your name in the list to indicate that you have accepted something. It doesn't, since your username is not in the "acceptance" section. The appearance of your username in the "no show or inactive" section of the list does not make you a member of WP:SLR, it does not indicate that you accepted the Dispute Resolution Agreement, it does not indicate or imply anything about your personal views, and it does not place on you any obligations that do not apply to every other Wikipedia editor, regardless of their involvement in SL-related articles, in the AN/I discussion, or in this project.

I hope that clear up any ambiguities or confusion. If you still do not want your username to appear in the list, then please indicate exactly what your concerns are, so that we could do something to specifically address them (per FayssalF's original comment in this section). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• a) This project should work, be it with usernames or ghosts. If anyone who didn't recognize the resolution doesn't want to be mentioned then fine. I don't think discussing this would benefit Wikipedia project or this project in paricular. The "revert, edit war, 3RR, incivility, block, protest, remain blocked" cycle is a waste of time. The removal will surely benefit the named usernames and that's great. I think my a) point above addresses this point.

• b) Now let's see what would be beneficial to the projects... We first must respect the work of the people who spend much time here trying to coordinate editors' efforts in a calm and professional way. No disruption. Personally I am not mentioned on the list but that doesn't exempt me from my obligations toward the terms of the resolution (point b). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, I was only shown and I commented upon a "draft" (in drafting which I had no hand). And the draft suggested that I be made a party on whom certain sanctions (1RR etc) be imposed. I rejected the "draft" saying that no editor can be put on a list by admin fiat. Admins dont have that authority.
• I was not shown or was not part of any process where the "draft" became "final proposal" and thereafter an "agreement" under the aegis of SLR. In other words, my name here is under the signatories to the "final agreement" which is a misrepresentation of my stand because I have never been invited to comment or commented on the "agreement" at all. If you want to note that I was one of the editors who was invited to comment on the "draft", then so be it. But make that explicit and clear -- just dont claim that I was invited to comment on the final agreement. Right now, the "Signatories" section suggests something quite different. I was nowhere around this place when the "agreement" was "implemented" or even when the "draft"/"Specific propsal" became "Final resolution".
• Fayssal - I think my a) point above addresses this point. - So why dont you simply remove me from that list and put an end to all this? Do you realize that I removed myself from the list, but was tag team revert warred back into the list?
• And given the claims here as to why those who are on the list are on the list, can someone explain to me why Gnanapiti is on the list? Sarvagnya 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone thinks you signed anything Sarvagnya. At the opposite, people believe you haven't signed anything. Some others, me included, believe that you refused to sign even as being present. So being on the list or not doesn't matter. What really matters is...

• ...the list of people who signed and accepted the enforced rules. Those editors, admins and the ArbCom refuse to see any disruption to the resolution.

• point c) Sebastian and all admins are here to help everyone and their work should be respected. You also should remain calm. Requesting gently a removal of your username using a valid reason is one thing. Doing it unilaterally and go on reverting everyone before accusing the lot of tag teaming is another. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand the historic reasons for Sarvagnya being on the list, but I think it is fine to see them as what they are, i.e. historic. Let's remove Sarvagnya from that list and be done. This will free much needed energy for other tasks. I see appearance on that list analogous to a phone book. You can decide to have your name listed, but other people cannot decide that for you. Period. Jasy jatere (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jasy, while understanding your point of view and I also want to move out of this but still I need to ask a nagging but rhetorical question, can I remove myself from the list too from the future ? can Iwazaki remove himself from the list ? can Snowulfd4 remove himself from the list in the future ? Can Watchdog remove himself from the list ? Where does this end and at the end of that process who is left on the list ? At the end what we are discussing is about our ability to rewrite history ? are we not. Anyway sorry for adding to the problem but not solving it. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of your points are theoretical (I think you do not want to remove your name), but still, here we go:

• I think anybody can change from acceptance to rejections and vice versa. Opinions evolve and people change their minds.
• Anybody can change from no-show to acceptance or rejection (Hey, that's what everybody did in the beginning)
• If you quit wp, or quit editing SL related articles, you should probably remove your name as a matter of book-keeping
• People who have been put into "rejection" by "Higher Powers" (Admin/Mediation/Arbcom) can only change the class by appealing to the powers which put them there in the first place.
• As for the users you name, I am not around long enough to know why Iwa and Snowwolf are in the rejection class, but I think they are against WP:SLR. If some community decision had them end up there, they should stay there until the community decides otherwise, if they added their names themselves, they are free to remove them. Watchdog has accepted the agreement, but if he should come to the conclusion that he has lost faith in it, he could remove his name from the acceptance list (and probably add it at "Rejections").
• It is impossible to claim ignorance of WP:SLR if you have been either in the acceptance or rejection list. Hence it is impossible to move back to no-show.
• For the case of Sanga, he does not want to vote yes, he does not want to vote no, he does not even want to abstain, he simply does not want to go to the ballot. I can't see the problem. Many SL related users are on none of the lists e.g. User:Krankman is not on any of the three lists, but is editing SL related articles on a regular basis (This is NOT a call to add him to the list, nor is it a call to add User:Jsorens or User:Jorge_Stolfi, or any other User).

Jasty, I think you are misunderstanding the problem. Sarvagyna wants to remove his name because he "feels" like it and does not give a valid reason to remove his name. He was a party to many edit wars that took place in Sri Lankan related articles. Thought Sarvagyna might have only done, lets say, one revert in a situation of a revert war, then he is a party of the revert war itself. This is the crux of the matter. If you revert, even once, to a version that was a subject of the revert war, then you have indeed participated in the revert war (tag-team revert war as some imply). Sarvagyna further took part in many content disputes in Sri Lankan articles also. This is the whole reason that his name was initially put in the SLDR discussion on the AN/I - which was aimed to stop these types of edit wars in Sri Lanka related articles. Sarvagyna now comes here and says that he had no idea that there was this resolution. This, however, is not correct. In fact, the Final Resolution was posted by admin (Rlevse) at 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC) while Sarvagyna's last comment on the issue came at 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC). This clearly means that the user posted after nearly 2 hours from the time Final Resolution was posted. So assuming that the user never looked at the page after his last visit, it still means that he was aware of the final resolution. He decided not to comment and this is why, the user as a involved party, is listed under the Signatory list (but as no-show /inactive section). Watchdogb (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Here is the version of the ANI page when I last edited it. Clearly, it reads "Specific Proposal".. not "Final resolution". And if you can read my comment, I clearly take exception to having my name mentioned under "Users to be covered in this agreement". And that was the last I ever commented on the matter. I was not invited to comment and did not comment on any "Final resolution" or "Agreement", least of all an agreement of the SLR with which I have no truck.
• Neither the proposal nor the agreement says anything about including in its purview everybody who had commited a revert on a SL related article. In fact, no "agreement" can pass any such commandments. I am a member of WP:KAR and that doesnt mean I get together with a few other members of WP:KAR and lay down our own rules for WP:KAR articles. I cannot further pretend that I will include in the purview of my ad-hoc rules everybody who has ever edited a WP:KAR article. In other words, if you want to police yourself, nobody is going to stop you. But you dont have the right to police others. We already have wikipedia policies and guidelines laid down for that. If you folks want to get together and collaborate, collaborate.. just dont assume that you can lay down seperate rules for articles you work on. You simply dont have the authority to do that. If I am edit warring, feel free to report me on the 3rr board.. afa I can remember, except for the 3 reverts on this page yesterday, I've stuck to 2rr on every article I've worked on for as long as I can remember.
• And talking of edit warring, content warring etc., my question as to why Gnanapiti is on the list still remains unanswered.
• And if everybody who has a revert on a SL-related article is to be on the list, why arent Jayjg or Blnguyen or many others on the list?
• And to answer Kanatonian' "rhetorical" question, if any of you want to remove yourself from the list, just go ahead and do it. But what in heaven's name does it have to do with my name being on the list? And, then the minor matter that you put yourself on the list while I was put there by godknowswho. Sarvagnya 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I did not volunteer my name to the list. I was identified by a group of admins along with the rest of the names which included you and User:Gnanapiti (I think because of his/her edit warring in Sarathambal, State terrorism in Sri Lanka to name a few) and did not include User:Blnguyen (I dont know why and did not care at that time neither do I now) and was point blankedly asked to sign or reject. I happen to sign it and you at that time involved yourself in discussions but did not reject or accept the agreement. Currently the document reflects that reality and in my opinion we should leave it at that rather than to rehash the same old issues. WP:SLR has become a wiki model where such experiments have been tried in Israeli-Palestinian conflict related articles today. It is a working model and has contributed to peace and quiet for a long time and has resulted in the creation of high quality articles related to Sri Lanka for Wikipedia. The document you want to amend is a past tense, history, the way it was. In the present tense and in foreseeable future all editors who edit, SLR edit protected articles will have to abide by that agreement whether they were initial signatories or not. What you are trying to amend is like amending the original US constitutions signatories. You can amend the constitution in content but not who signed it (in this case those who refused to sign it) . Again it is history, in my opinion you should move on because you are not going to convince anyone to tamper with that original agreement we had or we open the flood gates and believe me the wider Wikipedia community is not going to open itself for bunch people to give a black eye to Wikipedia again. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You clearly dont seem to understand the situation and I must ask you to stop taking this discussion backwards. Your analogy ('US constitution') is flawed and your assumptions factually incorrect. I can be put under "no show" if and only if I had been invited in the first place to comment upon the "agreement" on this page. Fact of the matter is, I was not. I was only invited to comment upon a "specific proposal" and that too on ANI where it is open for comment by anybody and an invitation is actually superflu Nobody has to be even invited to comment there. Also, can you point out precisely where I am asking you to change "history" or your "original document"? I am not asking you to do any of that, so stop your straw-man arguments which only serve to obfuscate the issue. I am only asking that I not be misrepresented. As it stands now, the list suggests that I was somehow a part of or atleast an invitee to the "final agreement", which I decidedly was not. If you think otherwise, show me a diff, where I've been invited to comment upon the agreement. As for your agreement, keep it.. who is to prevent you? Just be aware that you choosing to honour a proposal of the SLR does not mean that everyone else on wikipedia has to. As for Gnanapiti, so he's on the list because he has a grand total of 10 edits or so(the last of which was 2-3 months before Oct 2007) on SL related articles? Great! That explains it so very beautifully. I'm sure he'll be thrilled when he hears it. Sarvagnya 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• You asked for the diff. See here. Where you have been claerly invited and politely asked to accept the agreement and this where the history lives anyway. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• That diff (like I imagine, I've already pointed out more than once) does not point to any invitation to the "agreement". It was an invitation to a "specific proposal". Also.. it only stated that my input would be "appreciated".. not that it would be binding on me or that I was absolutely required to sign up for it or that I'd already been signed up for it. Sarvagnya 00:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

One comment: Sarvagyna, no one from WP:SLR layed the rules of SLDR. Your argument of WP:KAR makes no sense as this does not relate to anything that is being discussed. It's funny that you claim that WP:SLR members decided to lay a rule down and police everyone because the SLDR was not proposed nor edited by a WP:SLR member. Watchdogb (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagyna, stop playing blind. You need to stick to the topic at hand an not bring in the terms of the SLDR into this argument. Anyways, your claim that Just be aware that you choosing to honour a proposal of the SLR does not mean that everyone else on wikipedia has to shows that you are not reading the comment made by admins above. It was a resolution passed (via consensus). As such, as explained by FayssaIF, everyone who was originally a part of the edit war cycle and others have to honour the rules of SLDR. Go back and see the An/I discussion again where a couple of admins repeated it more than once. Watchdogb (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)So Sarvagnya's only problem is that Jayjg and Blnguyen is not on the list. - Neat!. I ask you why I am on the list and you tell me its because I have reverted on SL-related articles in the past. Then I ask you why then are many others who also have reverts on such articles missing from the list and you retort with ".. only problem is that jayjg and blnguyen are not on the list"!! And then you wonder if it has anything to do with them not being invited. So, would you mind answering these - was Gnanapiti invited? Was I invited?

I think I've explained enough. Fayssal has said more than once that anybody can choose to remove themselves from the list and Jasy also sees my point. I dont intend to keep running around in circles here and I will be removing myself from the list. The list as it is worded now only has to do with the "Agreement". If you want to mention my name, you may have to come up with a list which reads - "List of users who were invited to comment on an initial draft of the above agreement". Until such a time, my name should not be on this page. Sarvagnya 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The SLR way to resolve problems

Resolved

FayssalF called this section “Rights and obligations”, and wrote “any editor who did not recognize the ANI ruling has the right to remove h/self from the list.” While I respect his opinion, I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or general ethic principle that would back up such a right. I presume he extrapolated WP:OWN, but that policy only applies to articles, not to Wikiprojects.

To the contrary, such a right conflicts with my understanding of the purpose of this project. This project is not just a hobby project. It has been created, guided by § dreams, hopes, and visions, to empower those who want reconciliation and collaboration across ethnic boundaries. The basis of empowerment is ownership. Therefore this project needs to be owned by its members.

It is therefore clear that it has to be up to the project’s members to decide such questions as:

• Do we want to maintain the SLRDA list?
• Do we want to allow non-members to edit the project page?
• Do warnings need to be accompanied by discussion on WT:SLR?

I am certain we can go about these question as we always do regarding project internal issues: Discuss it among ourselves, after one of our members brings it up. Then we decide in consensus, as we always do. I propose we do that on WT:SLR/H, the page we reserved for our internal discussions. — Sebastian 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Do we want to maintain the SLRDA list?
  • Yes
  • Do we want to allow non-members to edit the project page?
  • No
  • Do warnings need to be accompanied by discussion on WT:SLR?
  • Yes Kanatonian (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of what 1RR means to us

The 1RR stipulation of the SLDR agreeement caused some confusion, because the guideline WP:1RR is not consistent and seems to be changing. Therefore, Black Falcon proposed the following definition:

BF	Disputed text should generally not be restored or removed more than once in a 24-hour period if an editor wishes to avoid violating 1RR. If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.

I think that's generally the right approach. I find it can be worded a bit better by avoiding weasel words such as "should". How about the following:

S1	We will count it as a violation of 1RR, if more than half of a disputed text is restored or removed more than once in a 24-hour period.

I hope that the “more than half” clause expresses, in a measurable way, what BF meant by “If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.”. Please let me know if I misunderstood that. — Sebastian 07:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a more solid criterion than the 50% rule. For this, I need to introduce three terms:

Old unreferenced text

Any text that has been tagged with a {{fact}} tag or related tag at least 24 hours earlier.

Partial reinsertion

The insertion of part of a text that has been removed by the other party. For example, if user:Deletionist removed the text “A did X and Y.”, then user:Inclusionist’s insertion of “A did X.” would be a partial reinsertion.

Consensus version

A version that corresponds to a consensus reached on this page or on the talk page of the edit in question. For binary decisions,(cases that have only two options, such as the question if articles should be merged), consensus is achieved when each of the arguments for one option have been refuted without counterargument.

With this, we can write the rule as follows:

S2

Editors can be warned or blocked for the following: Repeat a revert after less than 24 hours (except for #1 below) - Note: This is not a free-for-all. We will look at reverts, not at who did them, so check what others did before you! Reinsert old unreferenced text revert consensus version to non-consensus version It is OK to: revert to consensus version Remove old unreferenced text partially reinsert referenced text

This is longer, but I think it is clearer now. What do others think? — Sebastian 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote that, I thought some more in that direction: It doesn't actually matter what and when the previous edit was. What matters, is if the edit itself improves Wikipedia. We have standards for that, so let's start with those! This also means we need to focus on consensus. That gives us the following:

S3

Editors who remove good texts or add bad texts against consensus can be warned or blocked. "Good" texts need to fulfill all of the following: be reliably referenced (See WP:SLR#QS for specifics) contribute to WP:NPOV of the article not be defamatory be on WP:TOPIC "Against consensus" means: There are unrefuted reasons against the edit (unless consensus has been established by a dedicated process, such as mediation). "Reason" means: an argument that is based on logic and consensus, not on personal preference. A reason is "refuted" if there is a countering reason that has not been refuted.

Notes:

• Edits do not need to "be" NPOV by themselves. WP:NPOV is achieved when several points of view are fairly combined, which can take several edits by different people. The important thing is the spirit of cooperation.
• Reasons can be posted either on the article talk page, on WT:SLR or, in simple cases, in an edit summary. Example: "Source X is a reliable source according to WP:SLR#QS". Counterexample: "The article should be renamed" (... because I say so??) "rv POV" (everybody has a POV. Instead, you need to explain on the talk page why you believe the edit does not contribute to the WP:NPOV of the article, and allow time for discussion.

Please let me know what you think of this proposal. — Sebastian 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened with this discussion? While I was around, I handled it this way, but I'm not sure how people used it since. If there is no interest in pursuing this path, let's just archive this. — Sebastian 21:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Glossary or other guide?

Moved to User talk:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-TerrEssay § Glossary or other guide?

Discussion has been moved to essay talk page per #Archiving below. — Sebastian 21:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How to solve fundamental disagreements

Stale

I really hope that agreement can be reached about the fundamental questions at Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology, such as what the article should contain and how it should be structured. But if that doesn't happen, I would like to be prepared. This is a concept that might work in all cases where there are two fundamentally different and incompatible versions of an article, as is often the outcome of fundamental edit wars.

I see the following objectives for a good solution to such fundamental disputes:

1. Get agreement on the most fundamental issues first.
2. Be fair.
3. Allow reasonable editors to do good work on articles without hostile interruptions.
4. It should not depend on me. (For one, I believe in community efforts, but I also don't have much time.)

Did I forget any?

So far, I've come up with the following solution. It's quite unconventional, so let me know what you think about it:

If it turns out that there is no compromise possible, and both sides seem to have similar merits, then I will offer the following package deal:

Division of roles period: If side A (the "agreer") agrees with the basic demand of side D (the "demander", or the "doer"), then I will first change the article to A's last version (if it isn't already in this version) and D will be allowed to change it piece by piece to D's preferred structure. Each change needs to conform to 1RR_S3, and needs to be explained on talk page (or in edit summary, if it's a simple change). Only changes that serve the purpose of the basic demand, or changes that are uncontentious are allowed during that period. If there is any disagreement on an individual change, the change will be temporarily reverted to A's version, and decision will be deferred to WP:3O. (This will be announced both on WP:3O and on WT:SLR. I offer to spend three hours a week on this, so I can serve as a backup if no one else comments, or if comments are unreasonable.) If three changes are pending WP:3O, D can not make any new changes. This division of roles period ends when D says so; WP:3O decides when in doubt.

I think this achieves achieves the above objectives because:

• The side that feels more strongly about the basic demands needs to invest more time. That seems inherently fair to me.
• Each side can work at their own pace. Because an article will initially be in A's (the "agreer's") version, D has an incentive to move ahead quickly.
• There is an incentive for D to keep changes agreeable, because disagreement hinders the progress.
• Because it builds on WP:3O, I can be less involved than in a mediation case.

What do you think? Is it too complicated? Let's brain storm; please don't hold back if you have any other helpful idea! It would be great if we could discuss this leisurely before we actually need to resolve such a situation. --Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)