Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/incidents 1

message: Edit warring, I have got it fully protected for 2 weeks, now we can talk abaout it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version was really the WP:WRONG version! It transcluded a page in a user space, , rendering the protection worthless. While I admire the ingenuity of this idea, it is obviously gaming the system. I reverted the page and issued a warning on the user's talk page. I will also add that warning to our list WP:SLR#Warnings and blocks. — Sebastian 07:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No amount of admin action is going to resolve this issue of flags. Only way out is, discussion, discussion and discussion and if it fails then mediation and if it fails then arbcom. I hope the aprties are ready for a long haul on this issue. It is because both the positions using no flags and or using both the flags are wiki legit. Taprobanus (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{lt|Sri Lankan Conflict}}

message: Renaming from :Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to :Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been proposed here. — Sebastian 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed Taprobanus (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: *With categories, the general convention is that the title should match the main article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions). Also, while "Tamil Tigers" is a widely-used alternate name for the LTTE, "Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam" is still the official name. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming of Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE 

message: ;Removal of cited material 
 here,here and here
;Adding non cited personal opinion 
here in Black July article
Before it becomes a problem, I would want some admins to rule on it and inform the newbie or the oldie:))Taprobanus (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, this user has been around for a year. Were eir previous edits all OK? I wrote a warning on eir talk page, though. — Sebastian 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Artile Human Rights in Sri Lanka does not display a warning as saying it's protected under this project. So i dont think i'm violating anything (1RR) related to this project on that particular article. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, yes, you're right. Sorry about that. — Sebastian 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above user has removed material backed by RS here and twists what RS claims here. Watchdogb (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please let's not beat a dead horse. The user has been warned, and has stopped doing it. The changes you cite have already been reverted. It's time now to focus on content. This is already happening in the discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#SL Army in Tamil homeland and other sections. We can therefore close this incident as resolved. — Sebastian 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Couple of questionable edits in conflict related articles

message: Please see this  where contrary to WP:LEAD, summary information has been removed but the edit summary says misleadingly that information has been added. SLR has already warned this editor previously. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider blocking, but I have never blocked anyone, and I don't want to do that in a rush - I need to go to work now. And it's a bit of a special case, anyway, because we don't have an entry for this editor in our list of warnings. Last week, I was just starting to add the editor to the list when ey made me aware that I made a mistake in my warning. Therefore, it is appropriate to just give em another warning for now. Could you do this, please, this time? And please enter the editor in the warnings list. — Sebastian 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taprobanus (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about an edit

message: This article was merged to Attacks attributed to LTTE and now someone decided to move it. Can an admin please move it back to the version that was achieved after discussion. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? There are no logs for that redlink.  — Sebastian 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am sorry I meant List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. This is now leading to List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE because someone moved it. However, months of discussion lead to the merge to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. Watchdogb (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. That was clearly against the agreement, since the moving editor did not bring it up here. However, I'd like to better understand the situation. I don't see "months of discussion". Moreover, it seems the discussion last year ended with an agreement to keep two articles. Am I misunderstanding that? Usually, I would say the moving editor deserves a warning, but since I'm confused myself, I'm assuming good faith by assuming that the moving editor was confused, too. — Sebastian 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  By months I was counting instances of all argument about the move/merge of the article. Though the discussion last year ended with a different result than the one achieved , it still counts as discussion nevertheless. Furthermore, please do not misunderstand situations. The fact of the matter is that we did discuss about this article a month ago. There it was decided to merge the article and even a users move of the page was reverted and commented by an admin. I could not provide a link for this as all these moves has seemingly lost the talk page of the article Terrorist attacks attributed to LTTE. On a side note, I do not think a warning is necessary but a friendly note on the user's talk page could save us time in the future. Watchdogb (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Same user has moved the page again. Can an admin take care of this mess ? I was opposed to a warning to this user but now it seems that it is time for a stern warning. Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  I decided to make the move myself. However, I request a warning for any such action by the user on the basis of revert consensus version to non-consensus version. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course! I'm sorry, I overlooked your reply here. I agree completely, if I hadn't overlooked your reply I would have done exactly as you said. It's not so easy in Wikipedia to see why a page was moved, so there is a chance that Dutugemunu just didn't see the move summary and this discussion. I will write a warning on User talk:Dutugemunu now. Next time, please feel free to write a warning in such cases. — Sebastian 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I think your message is more appropriate than a warning. Warning might get emotions going whereas a friendly note will only make people understand. Watchdogb (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you so much for your understanding! I know others who would have said "this is already the second occurrence, now it's time for some action!". I'm not making this up, there was one person who left the project because I was too lenient for  in a similar case. I now feel sorry that I did not give you that same courtesy of a friendly note, when you had a bad day. Moreover, I am moved by how you took care not to make this a personal issue, but just reported the content related facts, for instance by avoiding the name of the moving editor altogether. You really incorporate what we wrote into our name: Reconciliation. Thank you for that! — Sebastian 07:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A barnstar ? :))))Taprobanus (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He has really improved since that bad day, but it's maybe too soon for a full flower. I therefore just created the Sri Lanka Hope Award as a sign of appreciation like our flower, but also as a sign of hope. Every member can present it without having to get approval from the whole project. If he is consistent with this good spirit, then we should present him the full grown flower. For now, I will be happy to present the first tea bud to Watchdogb. — Sebastian 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Excellent Taprobanus (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE]] 

message: In the above mentioned article I reverted this [version] because 
;Malabar Tamils
the entire section such as on Malabar Tamils (Synonym for Sri Lankan Tamils)  have been added without any RS sources and its is WP:OR to begin with as the Sri Lankan Tamils article does not even mention anything like that. The editor writes that Malabr Tamils were brought to Sri Lanka as indentured workers, which is untrue and it is commonly held view of extreamists in Sri Lanka given the civil war. It is not the view of mainstream acadmemics such K. M De Silva and  K. Indrapala amongst others who have written well researched academic books on this very subject. 
;Sri Labkan citizenship act
I have reverted such OR as well as what I think is off topic material per WP:TOPIC, because the article is about Indian Tamils in Sri lanka not about the justification of removing their voting rights. That should be dealt under a seperate article on Ceylon citizenship act
;Non RS website source removal
I have also removed a non RS source per SLR consensus (see here}.It claerly fails WP:RS.Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sri Lanka Tamils (Indian origin)]]

message: A user has violated 1RR on the following article Alfred Duraiappah, 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs, C.V. Gunaratne . Can an admin please take care of this . Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reminders posted at User talk:Nitraven (diff) and User talk:Watchdogb (diff). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1RR violation 

message: news may be A GOOD SOURCE to write about LTTE sympathy/support in tamilnadu India 
A Sinhala-language movie about Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels has provoked a row between Indian Tamil activists and the film's director . , .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayalalitha definitely must be angry ! Watchdogb (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you're looking for a scholarly, historical view on Tamilnadu's support for the Ceylon Tamils, Palanithurai & Mohanasundaram's Dynamics of Tamil Nadu Poltics in Sri Lankan Ethnicity is a good source.  Are there any particular articles where you have in mind? -- Arvind (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the IPKF article needs some clean up along with article such as LTTE (which is going to go through some more major editorial strengthening soon). Watchdogb (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, in that case one really needs to refer to Maj. Gen. Harkirat Singh's recently published book, Intervention in Sri Lanka which challenges some of the conventional wisdom on what India did.  I ordered a copy some time ago, but it'll take a few weeks longer before it gets here. -- Arvind (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  Awesome ! When I first read about this book I wanted my hands on it. As time passed by I forgot about this book. Thank you very much for reminding me about this. Watchdogb (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As part of this project we should start a list of RS sources for Sri Lankan conflict Taprobanus (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Row erupts over Tamil rebel film 

message: Could the participants of this project please watchlist and help improve the following articles which have been the subject of heavy edit warring and sock puppetry:
* Mudaliar
* Sengunthar
* Devadasi
Thank you. Jehochman Talk 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately these are Indian related articles with very little Sri Lanka conflict realted issues Taprobanus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Heavy edit warring and sock puppetry

message: The article Tamilnet is currently under heavy anon attack. Need to protect it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the past two weeks, the article has been vandalised eight times by four IP accounts. That level of vandalism is generally not enough to justify semi-protection unless there are BLP issues involved. In lieu of semi-protection, I will add the article to my watchlist (another set of eyes never hurts) and will also request that tamilnet.tv be blacklisted revertlisted. Semi-protection can always be reconsidered if this recent spate of IP vandalism does not pass on its own. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The request can be found at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#tamilnet.tv. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks as always Taprobanus (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi protection needed

message: There has been a couple of content dispute going on in Sri Lankan Conflict areas. The first article is Battle of the Forward Defence Lines where a couple of users are not discussing the problem but rather revert any changes made at the article. For example, I have added some content to the article after a revert here but even this cited information has been removed by another revert here. For a more detail of the problem please refer to the discussion page of that article. Another article with content dispute is Sri Lankan Civil War. 
This article is currently locked but it needs some comments from WP:SLR members. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On Sri Lankan Civil War, both Watchdogb and the other side (User:Top Gun and User:TheFEARgod) violated the  in spirit and letter. I therefore had to notify resp. warn these three users. Should we also put Battle of the Forward Defence Lines under SLDRA?  --— Sebastian 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, please do so. This article should be included as it is another one of those articles that are controversial. Furthermore, the request by me to add this to the article has not been opposed. So it would be better if this article is also included in SLDR. Watchdogb (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been no objections for the request on the article talk page. Furthermore, the initial SLDR was to cover all conflict related article. This article is directly conflict related and I believe that it should be protected by SLDR. I wanted to do it myself but decided against it for personal reasons. Watchdogb (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. --— Sebastian 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Content dispute over Sri Lankan conflict articles

message: Watchdogb (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider myself a Canadian Wikipedian, the article in question is not entirely neutral.  Sivanesathurai Chandrakanthan is accused of being a War lord who as the ring leader of  Para military group that kidnapped hundreds of Sri Lankans for Ransom and killed many who did not pay up. Canada has recently given refuge to number of Sri lankan civilians who ran away from his groups activities. Please read Dostum, an Afghan war loard cum politician, at least that article get's into both sides of the coin without violating BLP. Personally I dont care about the status of that article because the wider Wikipedia community should care one day and as this is an Encylopedia not a News cite and as such articles with time will reflect what they really should be. So it is not real neutral article but a good start may be. Taprobanus (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I do not disagree with Sebastian's hope award. We all need hope Taprobanus (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sri Lanka Hope Award for Snowolfd4 

message: Removed the images - no need personalities of one side on an article which speaks of ethnic conflict of two communities / Lakshman Kadirgamar is not the only victim in the ethnic conflict.Teasereds (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sri Lankan Civil War]]

message: A user has been removing the Anti-rebel subscript from Asian Tribune. After being pointed to the Classifications of sources at WP:SLR#list_of_sources the user has reverted again. This user is well aware of classification of sources. Watchdogb (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we had similar discussions before. See #Classification as "QS" below. Sebastian (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the poster, no encyclopedia importance, the poster is cited on Anti-Rebel website, the poster with no background that it has taken in London.Teasereds (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Anton Balasingham]] article

message: The project page is undergoing active edit warring. See this. I request edit protection till we resolve all conflicts. Taprobanus (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SLR Project page Edit protection requested

message: I have listed Sri Lankan Tamil people article for peer review, hence I have removed the Blue box from the article page but left the SLR agreement in the talk page less people are intimidated by the blue box restriction. It is not meant to remove SLR agreement from the article. Just informing the project members. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: A user has created an article called List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (since 2005) with the exact same information (copy paste) from an article that already exist called List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. No new information was presented and serves no purpose to have it as a different article. Can an admin please merge these two articles or delete the List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (since 2005) since it is just a copy paste from other article. Watchdogb (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was a bad copy paste move, and wasn't linked anywhere else, I've deleted it as requested. MBisanz talk 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles with exact same information 

message: Please see here and here. This looks to me like a violation of WP:NPA and according to the SLR agreement-section 6 there is Zero Tolerance for such violations and we have already issued a warning to the above user. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should take this to ANI next time?Teasereds (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No Teasereds, we should wait for the admins here to comment, thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before I write anything, could someone please clarify what "elalan" means in the context of this diff? (I've notified Iwazaki of this thread.) Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "elalan" was a user who was active in Sri Lankan related articles before he was blocked for violation WP:SOCK. Watchdogb (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

text: How long do we wait or do we give him another warning and archive it ? Taprobanus (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of sock puppetry

message: User:Nitraven has violated 1RR in a number of articles protected by SLDR. See Captain Miller( revert here and here), Colonel Soosai (see here and here) and Pottu Amman(see here and here) by re adding the Terrorist cats. He has already been warned for his violation ( see here). An appropriate action is needed to stop this behavior. Watchdogb (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This user has not reverted all of his edits. Pottu Amman article still has Sri Lankan Terrorist tags. Watchdogb (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didnt see that its reverted.Nitraven (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) I believe that this was a technical oversight only. It seems to me that Nitraven attempted to self-revert, but reverted the wrong edit (this one instead of this one). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that my comment was obsolete by three minutes. :) –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 RR violation 

message: First let me comment only on the issue of Terrorist Category as it is the biggest issue at the moment. Sri Lankan rebels were categorized as “Sri Lankan Terrorists” in wikipedia for a period of time. I feel that this category is in direct violation of a couple of wikipedia rules. The first issue is that this category violates WP:NPOV; “terrorist” is a POV word that is normally used to describe someone enemy or opponent. We, in wikipedia, are not allowed to call someone a “Terrorist” without WP:RS that specifically claim that they are terrorists. If we do have WP:RS to claim that someone is a terrorist, then editors are allowed to add that to an article but only in the format “X says Y is a terrorist” or “X alleges that Y is a terrorist”. This is the only way we can say that some is a terrorist. Our case, however, is unique in that when we categorize someone a terrorist, we cannot follow “X says Y” as it’s a category. I think the best way to resolve this issue is to take a look at the recent mass CFD involving all ‘’Terrorist’’ category, which resulted on a keep. The closing admin rationalised that definition on Category:Terrorism, if used properly, will take care of most concerns with the Terrorist categories. 
The definitions are as follows: 
*Use of violence or the threat of violence.
* Targeting civilians.
*Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.
*Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government, thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain.
In addition, it also specifically says “If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate.” So to categorize someone, the four definitions should be satisfied as well as the latter, and probably most important, part. Definition 3 serves as one of the most important part to not include some of the LTTE members. Sri Lanka is one of the countries that is plagued with Civil war – A state of war and crimes committed under state of war, while may be defined as terrorism, cannot make the perpetrator a Terrorist. Another thing that is missing in most of the so called “Sri Lankan Terrorist” article is reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist. Nitraven claims that Interpol is enough to categorize someone a terrorist but that is incorrect. All that Interpol states is that these individuals are wanted on Terrorism charges, but it does not categorize them as Terrorist explicitly. We cannot say that because someone is wanted on terrorism charges that they are terrorists because this is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. In addition to violating WP:SYNTH and WP:OR that claim is also false. A wanted person is not automatically a criminal because they have not been convicted in a court of law. To this point we should enforce that all categorization of a person as “Sri Lankan Terrorist” must be backed by mainstream WP:RS that explicitly say that the person is a Terrorist. Watchdogb (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Watchdogb 

message: The user User:Watchdogb has has iolated 1RR in the of article Balraj protected by SLDR. here. Nitraven (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two most recent reverts were made on 20:13, August 11, 2008 (UTC) and 14:48, August 13, 2008 (UTC), which is more than 24 hours apart. Also, since the intervening four edits by Thamil Priyan and myself (see diff) did not affect the disputed text, the "we will look at reverts, not at who did them" provision of 1RR (for clarification, see definition "S2" at #Clarification of what 1RR means to us) does not seem to apply. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 RR violation 

message: Is the recent block of watchdog an incident under WP:SLR, or not? Not sure myself ...
Jasy jatere (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not an article covered by SLR, it was edit warring that got him blocked for 72 hours. Taprobanus (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  should that article then be covered by SLR agreement in the future? Jasy jatere (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think all conflict related articles about SL should be covered by this agreement.  Taprobanus (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block of watchdog 

message: I would like to extend the box protection by another 6 months considering the trajectory of the Sri Lankan civil war that is  not showing any end in sight, thus provoking people to indulge in proxy war in Wikipedia ? Taprobanus (talk) 12:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been a very successful measure, and as far as I am aware there has been no complaint for a year now. Why not extend it by another year? — Sebastian 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont mind but I would like others to chime in as well. Thanks for coming back from leave to comment on this. Taprobanus (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: OK for me, since it helps to prevent edit wars. However, we should try to update the membership list. Lahiru has not edited since june, so I wonder whether he is still active Jasy jatere (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: After the blue box protection the edit wars have been reduced substantially and 4 articles, all related to Sri Lanka, has been made into Good articles! I agree to extend the protection. Watchdogb (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extending the Blue box protection

message: The indef block on  surprises me.He/she was a new user and sadly new users editing in conflict areas are attacked and blocked whereas they would not be done in other areas.If he/She is not a sock then that block is highly unjustified as he/she was clearly insufficiently warned. Feel that Good Faith was lacking in the block.I would greatly obliged if any one can look into this block.Surely we cannot drive away new users.Please I am not supporting his edits but  indef blocking users for there POV is wrong. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: blocked as SPA and POV-pushing. The account was definitely centered on Sri Lanka, but not SPA as far as I can see. There are edits to Chankanai, Pandathiruppu and Sandilipay which are NPOV (and very short, but that's not the issue here) and do not serve any 'single purpose'. Furthermore, the user has added loads of categories to many articles. I have not looked at them in detail, but it does not seem particularly disruptive, at least it is not explained on his talk page. User also works in sourcing, which (quality of sources notwithstanding) rather points towards constructive editing. All in all, if there are issues with this user, I think they could be addressed on talk pages, and nothing in his behaviour seems to call for an indefinite block. Who asked for that block in the first place, and why? Jasy jatere (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tryiing to mentor the guy through his newbie status. He/She was responding to the mentoring. He/She was not given the opportunity to change, he/she was not given proper warning by admins. Just suddenly blocked for ever. Even in arbcom cases people are given 1 year sentences, very rarely are they blocked for life. I would like to figure out how to proceed further?Taprobanus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sandstein#Block_of_Iross1000 (Sandstein was the admin who declined the unblock) Jasy jatere (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've invited the blocking admin to participate here as a step 1. 18:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked  and I am not aware of a reason for an indefinite block. I invited the blocking admin,  on  talk page again to explain this here. If we have no explanation within a reasonable time, then I will revert the block. — Sebastian 20:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: User unblocked. — neuro(talk) 01:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indef Block of Iross1000 

message: *original removal
*addition based on this
*reverted again
But no explanation given about the Talk page discussion Taprobanus (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 1

message: I have reinstated the cats. A discussion here could be beneficial.Teasereds (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is YellowMonkey in violation of the Wikipedia :WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation one-revert rule?Teasereds (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Teasereds has been banned for running a sockfarm. YellowMonkey  (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 03:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you are behind the ban, but some of the accounts, which have been blocked are really not mine. I am forwarding a detail statement (via e-mail) to  Jimbo Wales, other  ArbCom Members, Bureaucrats and Check Users to verify whether you are a neutral editor or even worth enough to be an Administrator or an ArbCom Member on  wikipedia.124.43.219.139 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text:  Technically the experienced editor is in violation of IRR. Notwithstanding the disregard for SLR conventions,</S> we have to deal with citations and facts. If there is clear citation that says it was a massacre then the category applies. About the war crimes, it is a legal term. So we can argue both ways. About mass murder which is a neutral term as you can find as this describes all kinds of activities. I have cited why that category should be retained. Let’s see whether he wants to discuss it or not. Step at a time, you know Navaly Church Bombing happened may years ago. We are not going to resolve anything by editiong in an emotional tone or by trying provoke people by misleading edit summaries. At the end the facts will speak for themselves. Taprobanus (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless of who is blocked and who is not, this article's categories are cited. Following source is reliable and covers the category, specially war crime.  Watchdogb (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Navaly church bombing]]

message: Also would like to understand this edit summary considering the edit had nothing to do with the edit summary ?Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary on LTTE article

message: Since there has been a heated debate over the categorization of articles, we need to resolve this issue for all articles that are related to WP:SLR. From above discussion it seems that the following can be drawn from discussion 
*A Reliable source must be provided in order to categorize an article.
*Any POV source, including the two parties to the conflict, cannot be used to categorize an article. 
Is there consensus on these issues ? If not please address your concerns. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree on this consensus. Sri Lankan articles are of special case and has been the battleground many times before. By this criteria for categorization we can avoide WP:SYNTH, WP:POV and possibly any further edit war relating to this issue. Watchdogb (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think your edits violate WP:POINT. I only removed some categories where there is ambiguity between deliberate targeting and collateral damage or riots getting out of control. Planting a bomb in someone's house is not an accident. I have not removed the category for people who were lined up and shot in the back of the head, or hacked with machetes, because there is no doubt that whoever did them deliberately killed the people. In your case you are blanking out bombs planted in trains and planes, which cannot be compared to riots and disputed collateral damage. YellowMonkey  (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is your argument, do you think the Category:War crimes in  Sri  Lanka and Category:Civilian massacres in  Sri  Lanka don't belong to Navaly church bombing. You are blanking all the time. Don't try to be a "Proxy Warrior" as usual. Go and troll some less sensitive conflicts elsewhere in the world.124.43.194.119 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please maintain civility all the time. Let's try to understand what Yellow monkey is saying. These categories need wide consensus to survive a 100 years. Not just now Taprobanus (talk) 03:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallo, Taprobanus, I agree with you. But a person, who is narrowly escaped in the  Navaly church bombing and then visited the area after the bombing and then by my own hands removed the human debris especially the long hairs of women with fractured skulls, doesn't seem, I am violating any such "Civility" if there is something which is always valued by all the humans.124.43.194.119 (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, can we assume that the above definition claimed by Taprobanus should be the criteria to categorize article? I agree with that since this will reduce a lot of edit wars in the future. Can we resolve this issue ? Watchdogb (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since nobody has objected to this since last October, I conclude that the definition is agreed, and I added the two bullets, with an explanatory sentence, to the project page. — Sebastian 03:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended to all articles