Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive 3

message: I'm wondering if the #Articles and related issues list wouldn't make more sense on the project page. It is more of a list than a discussion. What do others think?  
I also would like to say something about the "(Shame on us)" part. While "to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ongoing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" is one of our goals, we need to acknowledge that the Sri Lanka conflict is a tough issue, and we shouldn't be to harsh with ourselves. Improving articles isn't always as glamourous as getting a star for a featured article. Much of it is tedious work in small steps, which is nonetheless important. And let's not forget our other goals: 
* To prevent large scale vandalism of LTTE and Sri Lankan government related articles and maintain the articles to convey a neutral perspective of the issue.
* To actively seek the cooperation of goodwilling people with different POVs.
* To resolve conflicts between editors, e.g. by mediation and by providing specific guidelines for conflict resolution.
— Sebastian 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About "Articles and related issues" section 

message: I have unprotected Sri Lanka Army and tagged it as part of these peace efforts.  — Rlevse • Talk •  23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding controversy section to Sri Lanka army, now almost every major international news sources corroborates on the scandal in Haiti involving Sri Lankan troops, adding other relevant sections to controversy section with  international RS news sources.  Sinhala freedom 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sri Lanka Army

message: First off, let me say that I'm really impressed that it was possible to get an agreement between so many different editors. Well done!
I have one problem, though: Many articles now have the ambox on top, and the first thing any reader reads is a bold link to "editing restrictions".  But that page is not a list of the editing restrictions, nor does a search for "editing restrictions" lead to any such list. Instead, the page is a 20,000 words long, complicated discussion, which itself begins with a reference to another page that should be read first. I know a bit about the SL issue, but even I feel lost on that page. After spending some time on the page, I assume you meant the "Final resolution" section, but I'm not sure. 
Could someone who is trusted by all signatories please change that page so that the "editing restrictions" are clearly visible to everyone? (Alternatively, the agreement could be on its own page, or under WP:SLR#Guidelines (which then would be renamed "Guidelines and agreements" or so), but in both cases, many existing links would need to be changed.) — Sebastian 06:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done with AWB.  — Rlevse • Talk •  17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the editing restrictions? 

message: Well, it didn't take long. I volunteered by my time to try to help the Sri Lankans get along and while most of you have been kind and appreciative, some of you aren't, so I'm gone from this peace effort.  — Rlevse • Talk •  17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to hear that.  --Haemo 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm gone

message: Many people have asked me to return to help, so I am doing that. Please keep in mind us admins are only trying to help and stay as neutral as possible, we have no political agenda of any kind. We only want peace and high quality articles. Keep civil at all times.  — Rlevse • Talk •  20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My return

message: Snowolfd4 has committed at least two acts of vandalism against the Sri Lanka peace effort, a community based and supported dispute resolution effort, called sourced edits "rubbish", used profanity, and attacked the motives of User:Haemo,  neutral admin trying to assist this effort. Therefore, I am blocking him for 72 hours.  See  with summary "removing rubbish from intro - discuss on the damn talk page", , . — Rlevse • Talk •  20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it would come to this; I don't think he actually seems to care about working on this, and he's been quite abusive to other editors and admins.  --Haemo 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this has come to this, he is a great contributor when he wants to be, has  created some good articles in the past. I sincerely hope, he comes back after this block putting aside his anger and deals with all issues about Sri Lanka related articles through SLR. I really do hope so.Kanatonian 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the block. It is the only logical consequence from the disruptive behavior as evidenced in the links you provided. A personal note: I am sad that it has come to this, too. It is now almost a year that I first met Snowolfd4, and in that time he has undergone a backwards development. Last December, he was open to reasonable arguments and apologized for mistakes. I would be happy if Snowolfd4 could stop the present childish behavior and rediscover these mature strengths he once had. — Sebastian 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Could anyone please show me, why snowolf has to be blocked for 72 hrs ?? All I see is he has reverted blatant POV pushing in the Srilanka article and have you guys even seen what is happening at the article? All I can see is it is going from a wiki article to a comic book!! probably he was harsh in his words(and who wouldn't after seeing those), and to block him merely because he said rubish is not acceptable!! Finally, it's up to him to join this or not, he has always made his comments at the talk pages and probably thats the way he likes to handle problem. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship , so people should have a choice. I choose not to join here, for time being , for my own reasons. Hence, tag snowlf as a disruptive user is not fair. I would kindly request admin, rlese to re-consider his decision. Thank you Iwazaki  会話。討論 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: declined, Snowolfd4 was intentionally disruptive and incivil. — Rlevse • Talk •  23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Block of [[User:Snowolfd4]]

message: Iwazaki has broken the 1RR  Sri Lanka.  He has reverted to his version  3 times here , here , and here  in span of less than 24 hours.  He has also accused user Pharaoh of the Wizards "sock edits", which is blatant personal attack here .  Sinhala freedom 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, calling some one a sock is not a blatant attack. I have made my self clear, I believe some of the editors,who made tag team edits(like in the Sri Lanka article) ,are probably socks. These editors come one after one, and do not see what is discussed at the talk page !! first it was, tabrobanus, then comes sinhala freedom, at the end its is pharaoh!! So, could you please tell me,what is worse,edit after discussing at talk page or tag team edits with absolutely no discussions?? And Please be noticed that, I am not a member of this project,for time being, hence I do not know what is going on here and what kind of decisions you take here(such as 1RRR). And concerning 1RR rule, blatant POV pushing, should be excepted from this. And tag team editing should also be dealt ,seriously.This is what exactly happening at the Sri Lanka article.Hope admins take necessary action regarding this.Thanks Iwazaki  会話。討論 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was ongoing discussion here regarding what was added on Sri Lanka article, and that was the consensus, that was inclusive of all major views, based on input from neutral admins.  So the effort was to uphold that conclusion and not "tag team editing" Sinhala freedom 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (Removed off-topic message per our header. This is not the place for personal messages and avice, please use user talk pages.)
This is an interesting test case for our Final Resolution. Point 3 says: These articles will be protected (admin access only) subject to a 1RR for 3 months". Iwazaki did not sign this, so does it still hold for him? Sorry if I missed something that's hidden in the discussion. — Sebastian 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a correction to Point 3: : "These articles  subject to a 1RR for 3 months". It was decided that protecting the articles will take away from the spirit of editing. So it was decided as above. Yes, everyone is subjected to the 1RR and all the other rules. This is so that the SL problem does not end up on ARBCOM which might result in many account blocks. Watchdogb 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See  — Rlevse • Talk •  23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said! I'm very happy that the process is working. — Sebastian 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the support.  — Rlevse • Talk •  02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I too agree with what was done on this caseKanatonian 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand behind the decision 100%. Watchdogb 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of 1RR by Iwazaki

message: Does this pass our usernames policy?  ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  I have no idea how to say or type it, which is a big inconvenience and detriment to cooperation.  Shall we ask this user to request a new name? - Jehochman  Talk 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not my username, thats my signature. My username is User:Lahiru_k. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foreign scripts do not violate username nor signature policy.  — Rlevse • Talk •  16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You can just copy and paste the sig into the text box of the search dialog. At least that works for me, using IE6. — Sebastian 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Signature

message: I'm currently running for admin. If anyone has any issues  wants to talk about, please say so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SebastianHelm. So far, the votes are looking very good, so there is really no need to go there to support me. I'm not writing this to ask for your vote, but only to give people a heads-up. — Sebastian 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Adminship