Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/housekeeping

message: This is the talk section for the section WP:SLR#Members.
===Applications===
Older applications are archived.
Please copy the text from the box below and add it at the bottom of this section. You may add some text why you want to join, but this is not necessary. People may come here to ask you questions, so please keep this page on your watchlist.  
========
========
I've been around for a long time, and have made small edits to the articles within the project's scope. I think it's time to take a more active role now. Chamal talk 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: support, always good to have an administrator on board (there was some misunderstanding about who could write on the talk page, but I think you would not need to become a member) Jasy jatere (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: support. User has a serious interest in the Sri Lanka conflict and I see no evidence for disruptive behavior. — Sebastian 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, to heck with bureaucracy! I am very touched by this poem; this is the nicest a application we've had here. Thank you! — Sebastian 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I forgot about this poem.  I have  - since I learned about the term - considered myself to be a Rhymester, and this poem represents the more serious side of that calling.  I appreciate this honor. Carptrash (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Members and other related issues

message: Older applications are archived.
Please copy the text from the box below and add it at the bottom of this section. You may add some text why you want to join, but this is not necessary. People may come here to ask you questions, so please keep this page on your watchlist.  
========
========
I've been around for a long time, and have made small edits to the articles within the project's scope. I think it's time to take a more active role now. Chamal talk 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: support, always good to have an administrator on board (there was some misunderstanding about who could write on the talk page, but I think you would not need to become a member) Jasy jatere (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: support. User has a serious interest in the Sri Lanka conflict and I see no evidence for disruptive behavior. — Sebastian 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, to heck with bureaucracy! I am very touched by this poem; this is the nicest a application we've had here. Thank you! — Sebastian 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I forgot about this poem.  I have  - since I learned about the term - considered myself to be a Rhymester, and this poem represents the more serious side of that calling.  I appreciate this honor. Carptrash (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications

message: I've been around for a long time, and have made small edits to the articles within the project's scope. I think it's time to take a more active role now. Chamal talk 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Chamal_N}}

message: I am part Sri Lankan, and I want to help make Wikipedia a good place. I want to take an active role. I am new, but I am working on becoming familiar with WP. Riotrocket8676 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Riotrocket8676}}

message: As membership seems to be required to have any say in decisions related to editing Sri Lanka related articles, I'm applying for membership. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Snowolfd4}}

message: Hi,
I've been editing on Wikipedia for around a year now and it has been almost everything related to Sri Lanka, I'm interested in joining this group because it can help me better the articles on Sri Lanka. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Blackknight12}}

message: I'm a long term editor of the LTTE and discussion of the article is being carried out on this Wikiproject's talk page. Also per Snowolfd4's reasoning above. PhilKnight (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: support, always good to have an administrator on board (there was some misunderstanding about who could write on the talk page, but I think you would not need to become a member) Jasy jatere (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks! PhilKnight (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|PhilKnight}}

message: I am applying because I have never seen a group to which one must apply
So, having found one, decided to try. 
I am a pretty longterm editor who usually avoids a fight,
But looking at this one, well it might be alright.
I lived in Sri Lanka for about thirteen years
But looking at the conflict is tough due to the tears.
Still, having found this, it's hard to look away 
So I guess I'll just step in and ask to have my say. 
Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: support. User has a serious interest in the Sri Lanka conflict and I see no evidence for disruptive behavior. — Sebastian 20:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, to heck with bureaucracy! I am very touched by this poem; this is the nicest a application we've had here. Thank you! — Sebastian 20:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  I forgot about this poem.  I have  - since I learned about the term - considered myself to be a Rhymester, and this poem represents the more serious side of that calling.  I appreciate this honor. Carptrash (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|carptrash}}

message: This user is no longer active. — Sebastian 10:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Iljayas}}

message: Hello everyone. I’ve been anonymously editing content (mostly grammar, nothing major) in Wikipedia for around a year now. I’ve quite a good handle on the post war situation in Sri Lanka and would like to contribute to this project.
Thank you.
R5bckv (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|R5bckv}}

message: I have just been asked by someone who would like to join what we are looking for in new members. 
As a project, we have not decided any specific requirements for our members beyond the general Wikipedia rules, and I don't feel we should. One thing however is important: Since the purpose of the project is to bring people from both sides of the conflict together, we need to be open to editors, no matter on which side of the conflict they are as long as they support the goal of reconciliation. 
When Thusiyan applied, two users opposed because they felt uncomfortable with voting for a new user, but he later was admitted without problems. The main concern seemed to be sock puppets. Sock puppets are a big problem in the article space, but I don't see it as a big problem for WP:SLR, since we make decisions by consensus. If someone choses to write the same argument twice, it's no more than a bit annoying.  
Do my fellow members' have any criteria that we should tell new applicants? — Sebastian 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are we looking for in new members? 

message: === FA ===
I'm removing the "(Shame on us)" from "Featured articles - None". While of course everybody here would be happy if our collaboration here led to a FA, this is over and above what this project has been created for - see WP:SLR#Purpose. So it's no shame. — Sebastian 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: I'm removing the "(Shame on us)" from "Featured articles - None". While of course everybody here would be happy if our collaboration here led to a FA, this is over and above what this project has been created for - see WP:SLR#Purpose. So it's no shame. — Sebastian 19:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: === Dealing with disruptive editors ===
It is not only necessary to revert disruptions, but also to engage them in a discussion. This is necessary because we want to give these people a chance to see the benefits of reconciliation, because we want to show them that POV warring is not an option, and because we want to document that we tried our best, before we have to resort to blocking them. 
Many of these POV warriors come to Wikipedia with the conviction that it is their duty to fight against what they perceive as misinformation. If their edits simply get reverted, it only strengthens their mindset that they're fighting a fair war against a reckless and impersonal enemy. When I first approach such editors, I try to be both compassionate and resolute. I think we need to be resolute about our policies, but at the same time invite them to our project to talk things over. (The user warnings for that would be usually level-1 or 2, but I feel none of these is appropriate because they lack the second part of inviting them to WT:SLR.) 
When they don't respond positively to that, it generally is appropriate to issue level-3 warnings, such as  or . If the user has generally been constructive, I'd prefer a handwritten message and listing in our table (unless the community decides to abolish that table, to which I would have no objection). 
If that doesn't help, it is time for a block. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only project member warning such users. One user I am thinking of in particular is . If someone had issued a level-3 warning, it might have stopped 76. But my hunch is that 76 might have just ignored it again. In that case, I would have been able to block that user now. (If you're wondering why I'm not issuing a level-3 warning: If I did that, and then blocked the user, then it would be three consecutive actions of only me against that user. That's not what I'm here for. I want us to act as a community.)  — Sebastian 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Bro :(( Kanatonian (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of it - but there's still a lot remaining. C'mon, guys, let's get this done together! I tagged some that were from the time that I was still active here; others who have been active later would be better predisposed to check if the more recent issues are closed. — Sebastian 06:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, guys, it's looking much better now! With regard to the three remaining chapters in the general section: Originally, I had hoped these would stir some discussion, but I have to accept that people are not interested. Because they are not just talk page contributions but rather guidelines that some of us go by, I therefore propose to change them into essays. The one by Hcberkowitz is already one (User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-TerrEssay), and we simply can move his contribution here to the talk page there. I cold turn the other two into essays as subpages under WP/SLR. I will also add a short list of these and some other general proposals (such as the one to use skype) on our householding page. Does that sound good? — Sebastian 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  sounds like a very good idea Jasy jatere (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost all of this has been done now. The one remaining big chunk is WT:SLR#Category:Mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils. How about archiving this, and adding it to WP:SLR/H#Unrealized proposals? (That section could then be renamed to something like "Unrealized proposals and unresolved discussions", or "Mothballed", or some other suitable name.) — Sebastian 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  How about archiving that discussion into "incidents" and then creating a new head under WP:SLR/H#Unrealized proposals and name it "Unresolved discussions" and have a link to the archived part? I can do this if no one objects Watchdogb (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objections. I will do as proposed. Watchdogb (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I can take care of "new membership" and "Lists of Sources". Watchdogb (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can help with the List of Sources. As for the archiving, can't we start using another bot? I don't know what the problems are that were experienced here, but is it not possible to find a bot that will avoid them? Chamal talk 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, guys, I feel much better already! I have to leave now, but I think I can find out about the archiving bot next week. — Sebastian 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I think that 7 days for archiving resolved discussions is fair. The amount of traffic we get on SLR is not overwhelming, so that we can afford these extra days. 30/30 for stale seems sensible to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: asked for bot to be set up Jasy jatere (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chores 

message: It is not only necessary to revert disruptions, but also to engage them in a discussion. This is necessary because we want to give these people a chance to see the benefits of reconciliation, because we want to show them that POV warring is not an option, and because we want to document that we tried our best, before we have to resort to blocking them. 
Many of these POV warriors come to Wikipedia with the conviction that it is their duty to fight against what they perceive as misinformation. If their edits simply get reverted, it only strengthens their mindset that they're fighting a fair war against a reckless and impersonal enemy. When I first approach such editors, I try to be both compassionate and resolute. I think we need to be resolute about our policies, but at the same time invite them to our project to talk things over. (The user warnings for that would be usually level-1 or 2, but I feel none of these is appropriate because they lack the second part of inviting them to WT:SLR.) 
When they don't respond positively to that, it generally is appropriate to issue level-3 warnings, such as  or . If the user has generally been constructive, I'd prefer a handwritten message and listing in our table (unless the community decides to abolish that table, to which I would have no objection). 
If that doesn't help, it is time for a block. Unfortunately, I seem to be the only project member warning such users. One user I am thinking of in particular is . If someone had issued a level-3 warning, it might have stopped 76. But my hunch is that 76 might have just ignored it again. In that case, I would have been able to block that user now. (If you're wondering why I'm not issuing a level-3 warning: If I did that, and then blocked the user, then it would be three consecutive actions of only me against that user. That's not what I'm here for. I want us to act as a community.)  — Sebastian 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with disruptive editors 

message: This page has grown very big, with some old discussions. In the past, most of the archiving has been done by Lahiru_k, myself and Black Falcon. Lahiru_k and Black Falcon haven't been active at Wikipedia for several months, and I have long ago pleaded for these chores to be distributed more fairly. Much as I am tempted to do the archiving again, I really feel it is time for someone else to step up now. It seems like an easy task to me, but please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions. — Sebastian 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Bro :(( Kanatonian (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of it - but there's still a lot remaining. C'mon, guys, let's get this done together! I tagged some that were from the time that I was still active here; others who have been active later would be better predisposed to check if the more recent issues are closed. — Sebastian 06:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, guys, it's looking much better now! With regard to the three remaining chapters in the general section: Originally, I had hoped these would stir some discussion, but I have to accept that people are not interested. Because they are not just talk page contributions but rather guidelines that some of us go by, I therefore propose to change them into essays. The one by Hcberkowitz is already one (User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-TerrEssay), and we simply can move his contribution here to the talk page there. I cold turn the other two into essays as subpages under WP/SLR. I will also add a short list of these and some other general proposals (such as the one to use skype) on our householding page. Does that sound good? — Sebastian 21:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  sounds like a very good idea Jasy jatere (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Almost all of this has been done now. The one remaining big chunk is WT:SLR#Category:Mass murder of Sri Lankan Tamils. How about archiving this, and adding it to WP:SLR/H#Unrealized proposals? (That section could then be renamed to something like "Unrealized proposals and unresolved discussions", or "Mothballed", or some other suitable name.) — Sebastian 20:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text:  How about archiving that discussion into "incidents" and then creating a new head under WP:SLR/H#Unrealized proposals and name it "Unresolved discussions" and have a link to the archived part? I can do this if no one objects Watchdogb (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No objections. I will do as proposed. Watchdogb (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Facts:
* Chores are necessary. When they don't get done for months, it's very embarrassing for us. Or does anyone think I enjoyed writing this? 
* Nobody here wants to do any chores. 
How can we solve this dilemma? I think we need to think about simplifying the way we do things here. We should start a discussion at least about the following most urgent areas: 
* Handling membership applications: Do members here want to maintain the membership admission process? I was strongly in favor of it when we founded this project, but that was while I still had the time to take care of it. Seeing the embarrassment it causes when nobody takes care of it, I now think it might be one of the things we need to sacrifice for the sake of simplicity. 
* List of sources: Maintaining the list of sources takes some steps. Two steps that often cause problems are: (a) When discussions are closed as resolved, such as here, without actually updating the list. (b) When discussions get archived, the links from the list point to a nonexisting topic. 
* Archiving: We had a bot do this for some time, but that apparently caused some other problems. Does anyone remember what the problems were? Does anone have a better solution? 
There are more chores listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Chores, but if we could solve the problem for these, much would have been achieved. — Sebastian 00:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I can take care of "new membership" and "Lists of Sources". Watchdogb (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I can help with the List of Sources. As for the archiving, can't we start using another bot? I don't know what the problems are that were experienced here, but is it not possible to find a bot that will avoid them? Chamal talk 03:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, guys, I feel much better already! I have to leave now, but I think I can find out about the archiving bot next week. — Sebastian 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I think that 7 days for archiving resolved discussions is fair. The amount of traffic we get on SLR is not overwhelming, so that we can afford these extra days. 30/30 for stale seems sensible to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: asked for bot to be set up Jasy jatere (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to make this project less dependent on chores? 

message: The problem with the bot we used in 2007 was that it archived stuff that shouldn't have been archived, e.g. the elements marked "" in this diff. The Archiving interval discussion made me aware that the best way to prevent all such problems is by having the bot arcchive only sections marked "". Does anybody know a bot that does just that? — Sebastian 19:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that 7 days for archiving resolved discussions is fair. The amount of traffic we get on SLR is not overwhelming, so that we can afford these extra days. 30/30 for stale seems sensible to me. Jasy jatere (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: asked for bot to be set up Jasy jatere (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot, again 

message: I just noticed that our list at WP:SLR/H#Rewrite projects has melted down to only one article. Thanks for that! Since we want to offer choices to people, please feel free to add some new links there. — Sebastian 03:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Rewrite projects list