Revision as of 23:26, 24 January 2007

About this page

This is the discussion page for a new WikiProject to help with neutral coverage of the Sri Lanka conflict. It is not yet decided if we can adapt WP:NCSLC or have to create a new project. — Sebastian 08:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

General discussion

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NCSLC

Have you ever considred joining this project, now that dust has settled down I am thinking about it myself. Thanks RaveenS 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yet another project to join! Actually, I did consider joining, but I wasn't sure if it would be perceived as being neutral, since the member list seemed to have some bias. However, I love the idea, and I'll ask some people from the GoSL-friendly side if they'd like to join, too. — Sebastian 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would respectfully decline your offer for the reason you mentioned above. The member list is biased with one particular user User:Elalan found to be a sock puppet too. Thus i would prefer to temporarily observe the situation for the moment as a independant editor. Granted there should be a way in which people from differing camp's can work together for the benefit of a common goal namely a better coverage of the sri lankan crisis however for the moment i would respectfully decline your offer.Kerr avon 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am not familiar with the situation that lead to User:Elalan's block. I asked very sympathetically there, but I got no reply. Could I persuade you to join if they agreed with removing User:Elalan from their member list? I could also ask very generally if all stale members can be removed.

Or do you think it would be necessary to recreate such a problem project under a different name? Would you support me in such a project? In that case, of course, we would have to recruit some members from the other faction. Would you have any proposals? — Sebastian 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied in my talk page sir..ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to help any project/idea to give a neutral coverage of sri lanka if it is a genuine effort. The problem with the above existing project is that the memebers edit's show them to be having a anti-government and pro-LTTE view, thus questioning the so called claimed "neutrality" of their project. They will call the government of Sri Lanka a terrorist organisation yet they will cry foul when the LTTE which has exploded bus bombs killing and injuring young children is called a terrorist organisation.

The main point is that there are a massive amount of Tamils living in Sri Lanka peacefully in colombo and its suburbs with singhalese. However a few tamils who have the pleasure of living abroad, not having to worry about LTTE tax collectors, not having to worry about whether a LTTE bomb will explode in the bus they are travelling, not having to worry if they would ever return home from a days work, who are dependant on the LTTE front end sites for distorted views of the conflict, are hell bent on using the[REDACTED] to defame my country and promote the LTTE. Most of the tamils i have met in Sri lanka are more easy going and less rabid than their counterpart's abroad.

If you start a project i would be willing to join it hoping to achieve some compromise.Kerr avon 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I am half way around the world and I cant get over this, yes remove user elalan as discussed User Raveen, i cant sign in properly because I am using a foreign language computer — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveenS (talk • contribs) 16:37, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. I can't remove any member from a WikiProject of which I'm not even a member. If you think they should remove a member then I think it should be discussed there. As for me, I have no immediate desire to have them remove Elalan. I would support it, or even propose it there, if it were a condition for Kerr avon and other reasonable users to join the group. — Sebastian 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject?

Of course, my intention as a mediator is to bring both sides to the table. I would have preferred to use the existing 'table'. But apparently, that's not an option. So I'm fine with creating a new project. However, I will invite reasonable people from the other side. What should we call the new project? How about "LankaMediation"? — Sebastian 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, one of the first things we could discuss is User:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Recommended guideline for editing Sri Lanka conflict related articles. — Sebastian 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be somewhat interested in such a group, however I have been wishing for a while now to divert my attention to other parts of Misplaced Pages where fair editing wouldn't be quickly and beligerently deleted for no particular reason besides alledged 'POV pushing', I did however think of starting a new Sri Lanka Coverage WikiProject that would bar known vandals, puppeteers etc etc whether they be pro Government or Pro LTTE. Please draw up a draft for your said project and I will get back to you about it.--Sharz 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be a pity if you left for greener pastures. Diverting some attention is a good idea, though - I do it myself. If you see the POV pushing in proportion - which you can do mathematically by dividing it by the importance of the issues - then I would say, the POV/importance quotient is probably one of the lowest here. That's what keeps me here. From the feedback that other reasonable editors gave me, I see that there is a big demand for excluding known vandals, puppetteers &c, so we should write that into our statutes. I personally do believe that people can improve, so I would like to include a rule that allows for past mistakes if people behaved well since. How about something like this: They need 40 good edits in articles covered by the project (since their last bad edit) or four weeks (whichever comes later) before they get admitted?

What do you have in mind, when you speak of "draft"? A draft of the statutes? I would like to discuss that with everyone right here; at least up to the point where we feel comfortable creating the WikiProject. — Sebastian 09:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To refer to the redemption of users, I agree with this in theory, however, there should be a look towards establishing a user's modus operandi. I suggest that we take a cross-section of edits by the user when investigating and the related talk pages and establish the user's editing pattern, for example, a user may choose to simply delete content and leave it at that, or become abrasive when questioned etc etc. Essentially we should say take a user in questions most standing out 20 edits or so on related pages and then create consensus among project members about this users trends and editing patterns and whether such patterns are what is needed for the project at hand. As for a draft, I believed that you would sketch out a skeleton WikiProject with a basic Guideline and from that it could be worked upon. --Sharz 10:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: redemption of users: I like your proposal because it uses common sense, and it focuses on "what is needed for the project at hand". My concern was that achieving consensus always takes time and energy. These are limited resources which I would rather use directly for the goals of the group. But we certainly can do it the common sense way first and only think about rules if that doesn't work out.

Re: draft: I like NCSLC's stated goals. Any thoughts about just copying them? Anything else you would expect in a guideline? This should not be just my idea - I'm only a mediator, and my goal is for us to work together. — Sebastian 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, one thing I would add over NCSLC's stated goals is that the project actively seeks the cooperation of people with different POVs, or something along those lines. Personally, I think failing to do so is what killed NCSLC. It should also be clear that it is completely OK to have a POV and that WP:NPOV does not, as e.g. Netmonger seems to believe, say anything to the contrary. — Sebastian 20:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are building upon very active users who log in once a day at least, so consesus shouldn't be as difficult as with other projects in and around Misplaced Pages. As for the POV, it stands to reason that we should avoid having the Sri Lankan Government commenting upon the Tigers and vice versa to an extent, because we could just have a "Yo Mama" contest instead. Also, certain governmental sources and Tamil Tiger support sites have based alot of their accusations upon no facts....but this is still regarded as their opinion, which really leaves us in a position to exclude it all together. I would be far happier to use reliable impartial souces for all opinions and referances, groups like the UN, U.S State and Amnesty. As for NCSLC, you would have noticed that I left the group quiet early on, why? because it became quickly aparent that it was simply a cabal of no really Pro-LTTE activists, but Anti-Government activists.

--Sharz 03:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

consensus: We do have some good experience with consensus building, above all I was really impressed and grateful how reasonable people were in the LTTE mediation, so we can be cautiously optimistic.

POV: Good point - that would define our limit. We certainly don't want to get bogged down in never ending POV wars - "Yo mama" is an apt comparison! I think the people who I invited are all reasonable, though, at least when it's not right after a bus bombing. So I think we will be able to work out our differences together.

NCSLC: That's sad about the bias. I don't have first hand experience, but I heard similar sentiments from others. That's why I want to add the goal of cooperation.

types of sources: I addressed this issue on User:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Proposed qualifications. UN, U.S State and Amnesty would be considered "RS", other sources would be "QS" or "0S". Does this address your concern, or am I misunderstanding you? — Sebastian 08:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject (from Lahiru_k)

If you can start a new project, I'm happy to join with that. As Kerr avon said, not even my dog will step there. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the "dog" part, but I'm happy that you're willing to join. That said, the whole project makes no sense if it's not endorsed by people from the other side. That's why I asked NCSLC if people would like to join. If they honestly want to contribute e.g. to guidelines, then we can all be grateful. Please remeber to AGF. Even somone who opposes your POV can honestly share your goal for having workable guidelines. — Sebastian 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those current NCSLC guys n girls can help on this matter. Elalan is a proven sockpuppet. Sechzehn, Sudharsansn and Cerebral Warrior are currently inactive. Nina Leembruggen, harlowraman and Trengarasu, I don't think that they will join with the new project. Though RaveenS and Sharz are not current members of NCSLC, hopefully they will join with the new project. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being the first who had the courage to name people individually. Elalan has been blocked indefinitely anyway, so he couldn't even join. It sounds you wouldn't have a problem if any of the others joined, which is good. I'll ask RaveenS and Sharz. — Sebastian 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NCSLC project (from Snowolfd4)

First of all sorry I took so long to respond but the new semester just started and I really needed to get some stuff done so I took a self imposed leave of absence from Misplaced Pages for about a week.

About joining the NCSLC, I really don't think thats going to happen. From its incepetion, when the creator of the project chose to name it against the recommendations of the administrator who helped them set it up, it was way too contrvorsial. I think it will be a lot better to wipe the slate clean and form a new project.

But if we do start a new project, I would like to know what you intend to do in it? Is it something like colectively editing selected articles? While it will be great if we really can talk and resolve disputes, I'm sorry but I really don't see it happening. Articles like Velupillai Prabhakaran, Mahinda Rajapakse, Sri Lankan Civil War and Tamilnet saw numerous discussions on the talk pages, but they (you know who I mean) just don't seem to agree to reason. With these articles, it took an admin to warn users like Elalan, Lankaupdate and the others that they were getting out of line and faced been blocked if they continueed to edit the same way, to make them see reason (Lankaupdate though did not and was eventually indef blocked). In the end the admin who helped prvent Elalan adding nonsense to the Mahinda Rajapakse article seemed to have quit Misplaced Pages a few days after the dispute. I have a feeling it had something to do with that dispute. And I don't think he has returned.

Even the LTTE article mediation, I really doubt we could have come to an agreement about it if Elalan wasn't banned from Misplaced Pages. The same intro as is now was proposed several times in the article talk page and he and some others just didn't agree with it.

But I guess I am been quite pessimistic here, and if we are able to get more nutral editors like yourself and Nina (don't remember her last name :( invloved we may be able to make some progress. Think you can do that? Otherwise, I've found arguing with the pro LTTE lobby is a complete waste of my time.

Also just to make you aware, we did form Wikiproject Sri Lanka, although since most of us are studing and don't have much time, we really only use it to let new editors know that there are other Sri Lankans editing Wikiepdia and encouraging them to edit further and helping them out. --snowolfD4 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW this is probably the longest talk page message I've ever left. Oh and sorry about your computer, and I was just wondering whether you you tried a data recovery program to get back your lost files? As long as your hard drive is works you should be able to. Good luck with that anyway. --snowolfD4 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the extensive message. Of course I understand that we have outside pressures, and I'm happy that you're back! I'm too tired now, so I can't give you the thorough reply it deserves now, but I'll reply more extensively tomorrow. Luckily, my computer is back; they had to replace the HD, but they managed to rescue all the data from the old one.

Interesting information about NCSLC's history. Now I understand why nobody wanted to join. This really confirms my resolve to add the goal of cooperation.

What was the name the admin proposed for NCSLC? Maybe we could use that one? — Sebastian 09:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're asking what I intend to do in the project. I collected everything from several pages in one project page, and I would like to know what you think of it. That's a big agenda already! I agree that collectively editing selected articles needs a lot of trust than we have at the moment - it's a dream, but not for the immediate future.

I have further reaching goals, which I haven't written down yet. With this project, I want to create a firm middle ground. The middle ground is always despised by extremists of both sides, and it's so fragile! It's not that there are not enough people in the middle; it's just that they are so afraid - and rightly so: One wrong movement and you got all the extremists of one side against you. I've had baseless accusations thrown at me, and I don't want to think about what would have happened if I lived in Sri Lanka. Moreover, nobody can be exactly in the middle, because how would you define that anyway? On top of that, everybody wants to claim that they are in the middle, so people are very distrustful when they hear that. So, even honest, thoughtful people align themselves with one side, rather than the middle.

But there is hope. To see it, we all need a different mindset. Instead of staring fearfully at two estranged gangs, we need to raise our view to see and value courageous people. People who dare to break the box in which the extremists want to put them. People who do not just take pride in being Sinhalese or Tamil, but also in being openminded. If this ideal becomes our paradigm, then we, the middle, will find our own identity.

And it can work. We will gain strength through a virtuous cycle: We will help and encourage people who move towards the middle, and each person we help will strengthen us. We will accept real people, not our ideals of them. Not even the extremists are ideal extremists! Even a sockpuppeteer or a POV fighter can have moments when he feels some sympathy for the other side. What happens now, when someone shows these feelings? His own "friends" will call him a traitor! He needs real friends! People who see the good in him, and help him. We will be a group of knights who help those in need, and who take pride in doing so. I want the membership in this group to become a badge of honor. That is my mission. — Sebastian 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of project page

Goals

Guideline: Classification of sources

Old version of table:

• Agree but would like to use the term pro, or considered to support, proxy for, or such terminologyRaveenS 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  "pro" sounds good to me, "considered pro" could be used in cases where we can't agree. I'm not so familiar with "proxy" in this context. — Sebastian 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agree However alot more sites are needed and it needs to be established that certain sites can be used for certain things, for example, if TamilNet has uploaded a popular primary source video of some Human Rights Abuse or something of the sort, could this be used as a reliable source? Also if defence.lk posts a video (such as with the Pottuvil Massacre) that people suspect, can this be grilled on the basis of the providence of the source?. P.S I found your backstory quiet interesting...--Sharz 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  Good points! We could have different classes of sources:

  • RS = Reliable sources. These can always be used without explicit attribution.
  • QS = Qualified sources. These can always be used with explicit attribution.
  • 0S = Unreliable sources. Can usually not be used. Individual exceptions possible if all project members agree. All sources that have not been categorized yet are treated like 0S.

  I don't currently see a need to say: Source S is RS in area A, and QS in area B, but the possibility exists.

  I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "grilled". It should always be allowed to question a statement by citing a contradicting reference. If two QS contradict each other, we can always explain that in text, as in "According to pro-X source S, such and such happened. However, according to pro-Y source T, it didn't happen." — Sebastian 07:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with the whole idea of "all project members agree" about Unreliable Sources, I think that this would lead to a massive backlog of discussion about the use of certain sources. It should be clear cut, something like Primary Sources hosted on such sites can be used as well as cited to express that particular groups veiwpoint or stance, however, cannot be used to substantiate infomation. --Sharz 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point! I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'm less tired. In the meantime, pls feel free to edit the wording I proposed on the project page. — Sebastian 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)