Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/general 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Templating regulars

I always have been opposed to construing the essay Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars as a policy. However, it makes sense as a recommendation: Templating your opponents doesn’t give you the desired results, at least not when it’s just a plain template without a diff and a description that could convince administrators that the editor really needs to be blocked.

A case in point was the case that started the section “General problem with user warnings”, which I just archived. In that case, an editor whom I’ll call Reverter kept reverting a page to a version that clearly violated policies. Another editor whom I’ll call Warner kept putting the same warning message again and again on Reverter’s user talk page. Reverter never took the warning seriously and even came here to complain about the repeated warnings. Since the warnings were unspecific, and since Warner did not explain them, we did not know if they were justified. Then, a few days ago, Reverter reverted the page again, and someone posted this as an incident on this page. So I looked into it and realized that the warnings had indeed been appropriate, and I issued a warning and entered Reverter in our table at WP:SLR# Warnings and blocks. Reverter now knows that, if they does it again, ey will be blocked.

The lessons I am taking from this are:

• On this page, we don't have to worry about accusations of inappropriate warnings on people's user talk pages. Usually, there’s something to them. Researching who is right would take too long and only distract us from our focus on content. I feel we only need to deal with specific, diffed incidents here. If one user is really pestering another, it is a violation of general Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPA, and requires no knowledge of the SL situation, so we can refer to the other steps of WP:DR instead.
• To anyone who has a concrete complaint about any content related edit, I recommend posting it here (with diff and explanation), since that gets results. — Sebastian 22:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blue box

I really think the agreements gets eroded without the blue template on the "Human rights in Sri Lanka" article and would support any move have it there. Sinhala freedom (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems this article got merely forgotten in the agreement. Let's give it two days and see if there's any reason why it shouldn't be on the article. I feel we should make a habit of asking that question on the article itself, and I will do so in this case. — Sebastian 07:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuation of SLR agreement

I have come to the conclusion that SLR has now become a model for Wikipedia to resolve problems even without going to Arbcom and its model has been followed by other conflict related areas. The agreement (achieved through ANI/I and Mediation techniques) which gave power to any Admin to follow a stricter interpretation of Wikipedia rules should be extended beyond the initial 3 months to another 9 months (total of 12 months) Because the initial 3 month has brought to sanity to the situation and this cooling off period needs to be extended based on Wikipedia:General sanctions so that we achieve permanent peace. It is because the Sri Lankan civil war is officially on (ceasfire agreement has been withdrawn) between warring parties and this tense situation may bring the worst out of human emotions on both sides making our effort at building an encyclopedia that more difficult. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally support this per Taprobanus. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been away for while, but have been studiously watching the agreement in action and I agree with Taprobanus, that agreement should be extended. It looks like it has helped cooled down the situation and ensure sanity prevails. Sinhala freedom (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Taprobanus, and especially the good argument about the ceasefire. However, since this is a change of an existing agreement, I feel this discussion needs to be notified to all signatories.

Since you bring up Wikipedia:General sanctions: I would like it if our agreement could be endorsed by ArbCom, so that it could be listed on that page, too. It shouldn't take too much of ArbCom's time. Such a ruling may also make notification unnecessary, but I still feel we should first ask out of respect for all the signatories, without whom this agreement would not have been possible. — Sebastian 06:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree wiuth asking for Arbcom to rule on it first, that makes it official. How do we do that ? Taprobanus (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a mere formality, and I'm not worried about it. My impression was that we'd have to apply for it on WP:RfAr, but anybody could simply ask ArbCom what they prefer, or maybe Rlevse knows. I'm not worried about it because I trust that ArbCom has an interest in providing clarity on such conflict resolution measures. Once we agree here unanimously that having an ArbCom ruling is the best for Wikipedia, I'd volunteer to jump through any hoops they might have. — Sebastian 16:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So lets wait the customary two days Taprobanus (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is a bigger issue than usual; it does not just concern our project members, but all signatories. We can't expect all signatories to follow the discussion here that closely. I therefore notified everyone but you on their talk page. — Sebastian 05:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal put forward by Taprobanus. Watchdogb (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, this project proposed by the admin worked. This would be the first time that some sort of normalcy has been in place regarding the SL conflict articles. South Asian articles have been left in the dark, and this could be a starter with the SL articles. Furthermore, this policy could be enforced on the Tamil and other Dravidian related articles of India as well. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote of confidence! — Sebastian 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So, is this one for another 9 months then ? Taprobanus (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Since we had no objection in over two weeks, I will change it. — Sebastian 06:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Good, Wikipedia has solved the Sri Lankan ethnic problem but will the international community do that in sri Lanka :((( Taprobanus (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)