This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kanatonian (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 5 February 2008 (→How to deal with newbies: resolved for now but let's watch the situation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

This is the talk page of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, a bipartisan effort to improve collaboration on and coverage of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Everybody is invited to participate in discussions here or to add a new topic. Members can moderate the discussion and delete any off-topic conversation; in particular personal attacks will be deleted. If you have a complaint about a user, please try to resolve it on their talk page first. For any complaints, please always be specific and provide links. To become a member, please apply in the Members and applications section. List of Archived Pages 2007: /archive - /archive 2 - /archive 3 - /archive 4 2008: /general 1 - /issues 1 - /incidents 1

General

Clarification of what 1RR means to us

The 1RR stipulation of the SLDR agreeement caused some confusion, because the guideline WP:1RR is not consistent and seems to be changing. Therefore, Black Falcon proposed the following definition:

I think that's generally the right approach. I find it can be worded a bit better by avoiding weasel words such as "should". How about the following:

I hope that the “more than half” clause expresses, in a measurable way, what BF meant by “If necessary, the portion of text which an edit affects should be deliberately limited.”. Please let me know if I misunderstood that. — Sebastian 07:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a more solid criterion than the 50% rule. For this, I need to introduce three terms:

Old unreferenced text

Any text that has been tagged with a {{fact}} tag or related tag at least 24 hours earlier.

Partial reinsertion

The insertion of part of a text that has been removed by the other party. For example, if user:Deletionist removed the text “A did X and Y.”, then user:Inclusionist’s insertion of “A did X.” would be a partial reinsertion.

Consensus version

A version that corresponds to a consensus reached on this page or on the talk page of the edit in question. For binary decisions,(cases that have only two options, such as the question if articles should be merged), consensus is achieved when each of the arguments for one option have been refuted without counterargument.

With this, we can write the rule as follows:

This is longer, but I think it is clearer now. What do others think? — Sebastian 21:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I wrote that, I thought some more in that direction: It doesn't actually matter what and when the previous edit was. What matters, is if the edit itself improves Misplaced Pages. We have standards for that, so let's start with those! This also means we need to focus on consensus. That gives us the following:

Notes:

• Edits do not need to "be" NPOV by themselves. WP:NPOV is achieved when several points of view are fairly combined, which can take several edits by different people. The important thing is the spirit of cooperation.
• Reasons can be posted either on the article talk page, on WT:SLR or, in simple cases, in an edit summary. Example: "Source X is a reliable source according to WP:SLR#QS". Counterexample: "The article should be renamed" (... because I say so??) "rv POV" (everybody has a POV. Instead, you need to explain on the talk page why you believe the edit does not contribute to the WP:NPOV of the article, and allow time for discussion.

Please let me know what you think of this proposal. — Sebastian 06:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Learning from Palestine-Israel ArbCom case

I am an arbcom clerk now. I am the clerk on this case: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles. The similarities in this dispute are strikingly similar to the Sri Lanka dispute (as well as East Europe, Azerbaijan-Azeris, etc). Some of you may want to see how this case goes in order to aid your own efforts and avoid going to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping by, and for the heads-up! And congratulations to your new role! I am sure we can learn from other ethnic conflicts, but I also hope that they can learn from us, too. WP:SLR has been pretty effective last year, especially since the Dispute Resolution Agreement was in place, which you selflessly helped to maintain. In 2 months, we resolved 19 content issues, many of which as hard as ArbCom cases - not bad for a group that's much smaller than ArbCom, I must say! — Sebastian 17:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, learning could go both ways here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Sumoeagle179. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Inspired by Sumo's recommendation, I went along and created Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration‎. Of course, I've no idea if this will catch on. Your input at the ArbCom case, or the WikiProject if it comes to life, would be most welcome. Peace, HG | Talk 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is wonderful! I'm so happy that this idea is spreading, and in particular to the Israel Palestine conflict, which is for me a particularly open wound, since I'm German: I think the actions of my grandparents’ generation fueled a vicious circle that is still spinning there.

I think there's already the first thing we can learn from them: They cut the sentence "This excludes members who have recently engaged in edit wars or sockpuppeteering." I don't remember why this was added in our project, but I propose we cut it. Every member has a right to deny a new membership anyway, and we encourage members to write their criteria on WT:SLR/H#What are we looking for in new members?, so there is no need for that sentence anymore. Any objections? — Sebastian 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of SLR agreement

I have come to the conclusion that SLR has now become a model for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Something like this for non-SL articles?

Wiki Raja's idea of doing something similar for other articles (above, 21:39) deserves a section on its own. I support the idea, but there are some hurdles: It probably couldn't be the same template because that one is specific to Sri Lanka. So we would either need a specif one for the area Wiki Raja proposed, or a generic one. A more fundamental problem is that the agreement is only a tool - it takes people to use it. In our case, we are fortunate to have people from both sides, as well as administrators who are willing to delve into the discussion and understand the issues well enough to be reasonably fair, when it comes to warning and blocking disruptive editors. A good way to provide a home for such diverse people is a WikiProject. Is there a WikiProject already, or would you propose to create one? If there is a project, does it have the right mix of people already? — Sebastian 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well you need to have a precedent. We have established that and now another attempt is on in Palestine-Israeli issues. We should suggest it in Village forum, so we can come up with guidelines as to how to create such projects Taprobanus (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

I have initiated a discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Synthesis? to discuss what to do with the article. I'm posting here so that all editors involved in the SLR effort are aware of it. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently a little too busy for wikipedia. However, I will reply to this in a 8-10 days if that is at all acceptable. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

How about another option, Terrorism in Sri Lanka in the likes of Terrorism in India it can be a neutral article Taprobanus (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll mention it on Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#Rename to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". I think it makes more sense to keep the discussion there. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not rename to "Sri Lankan state terrorism". As for the so called Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to keep that discussion in one place. — Sebastian 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Text which was moved from Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

We have to discuss all options as listed here not jsut one. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed! Thanks for pointing that out! I had read Black Falcon's great list of proposals before, but had forgotten about it when the discussion moved here. I wonder if people are just more willing to discuss this in a traditional section like this because they don't want to interfere with what he wrote. Maybe we could add {{partofcomment}} to each of his subsections so it will be more inviting for people to respond in place? — Sebastian 21:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Terrorism in Sri Lanka

It has been proposed (on WT:SLR) to rename the article to "Terrorism in Sri Lanka" to match such articles as Terrorism in India and to make it easier to write it as a neutral article. This seems very reasonable to me. — Sebastian 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

support this renaming as "Terrorism in Sri Lanka". It would make a neutral article.We can have a sub-heading there as a "list of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" or some thing.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Question: wil this article have two sections then ? one for terrorism by the LTTE and the other by the government ? will it then mirror the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article ? Taprobanus (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be one option. Another would be the example of Notable assassinations of the Sri Lankan Civil War‎. — Sebastian 00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

yes that would be one option. but the problem would be the topic "terrorism by Sri Lankan govt" is a POV. another option is to name as like "allegations of State terrorism". --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing prevents us from starting and developing this article right now. Those who have the time and and motivations can begin the article and eventually when the article is of a considerable maturity, we can add the state terrorims article into it or make it a main article of the section about state terrorism. I think most of us waste a lot of time discussing about it rather than to create it. Why not not just do it Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism

How about rename to "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". As for the Terrorism in India it only talks about non-state actors. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about India, but maybe there aren't any noteworthy allegations of state terrorism there? But back to the topic, you're not giving any reason why you think your name is better. — Sebastian 17:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

oppose to name it as "Sri Lankan State Terrorism". there's no concrete evidence or independent investigations on that matter it would violate NPOV.--Navod Ediriweera (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

(General discussion of NPOV, RS, NOTABLE, "academic circles" and secondary sources moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Rename to List of allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Rename to State terrorism in Sri Lanka

and repurpose into an article that gives an overview of the subject

State Terrorism like Genocide, Terrorism, Mass graves and Pogrom is a neutral English word clearly describes an action. It means we can write a neutral encyclopedic article on the subject. Just like we have to obey WP:NPOV, we also have to obey WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE and using these rules we can create a neutral article on State terrorism in Sri LankaTaprobanus (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly correct. Misplaced Pages does not depend on truth but on Realiable published citations. We have enough of that in the Article. The article itself is about the State terrorism in Sri Lanka. This is the best title. Watchdogb (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(General discussion of neutral article names and neutral words moved to #General discussion of neutrality related issues. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

My strong objection. Above mentioned article is a collection of allegations. For example have a look on the TOC. Renaming as this makes nothing but poisoning the whole situation. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 09:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only where it is because no one has taken the time to develop it. May be one day :))Taprobanus (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In[REDACTED] we say what others say. We strongly do not try to "prove" or find the "truth" of something. So in essence all articles in[REDACTED] are indeed collections of allegations or claims. In accordance with the rule of wikipedia, the current name of the article is "Allegation of State terrorism in Sri Lanka" which would mean that all the citations would only focus on the "Allegation" part of State terrorism in Srilanka. However, in this article the citations are the focus of "State terrorism" in Sri Lanka and because of this we should rename the article to "State terrorism in Sri Lanka". Watchdogb (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good reason, and it is stronger than my general reason against the term "state terrorism"! I will enter both of them in the table below. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government

What ever is considered to be Human rights violations as opposed State terrorim should be in Human rights in Sri Lanka article Taprobanus (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree for merging the whole subjected article. If it's happen so, I would like to expand the Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#State terrorism during the Second JVP insurrection by 10 times from the current size. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally disagree to merging the whole thing into Human Rights in Sri Lanka. Though I will change my mind of "Attacks attributed to LTTE" gets merged into this along with a bit more constraints. Watchdogb (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, this is not a vote. Therefore, it is pointless to just heap up personal preferences without providing reasons. And it's totally pointless to add the word "totally" - that wouldn't even make a difference if this were a vote. Can anyone among the three of you please provide a reason for your preference? — Sebastian 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment I made earlier, that was later removed, provides a perfect reason to my preference. Watchdogb (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to say, please say it clearly, and don't make everyone search the page history for what you might mean. — Sebastian

Human Rights violationsnad State terrorism are two different subjects. One is a violation of Human rights, happen all over the world but the other is terrorism practiced by a state as part of a Dirty warTaprobanus (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the discussion to a discussion of reasons. Of course these can be treated as different subjects - we have two different articles for these topics already. But they are very strongly related: Any terrorism is a violation of human rights. Moreover, state terrorism (just as dirty war) constitutes HR abuses by the government. So I don't see a reason why we shouldn't be able to cover the former topic under the latter section. — Sebastian 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The difference is the difference between HIV and AIDS, not everyone who has HIV come down with AIDs but when you get it then you have an acute case of HIV infection. Human Rights violations are in general involves your street level cop in Seattle beating up a protester where as State terrorism is a state at the highest level decides not just to allow the policeman to beat up the protester but instructs the police department to ignore not only any beatings but spay the protesters with live bullets with the intention of killing as many protesters as possible to use it as a message (that is to terrorize the opponents by attacking civilians) , go to their homes and pull their family out and kill them and when ever the case comes up in the court system suppress the evidence or cook the evidence. Disappear anyone suspected of remotely connected to the protesters without a judicial review. It is that simple, the difference between Human Rights violations and State Terrorism. One is an acute format of the other but with it sown separate definition. Taprobanus (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a well presented reason! — Sebastian 08:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

General discussion of neutrality related issues

(Moved from #Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

NPOV is not the only rule we use in Misplaced Pages. We also use WP:RS and WP:NOTABLE, NPOV cannot be used as excuse even to AFD an article, it just mean we need to find information that balances given one. State terrorim by Sri Lanka is widely dicussed in academic circles and is in published secondary sources that are acceptable in Misplaced Pages. We can write an article using those sources. We dont have to prove or disprove anything in Misplaced Pages. We simply repewat after repuitable sources without own own commentary which is called WP:ORTaprobanus (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What are these "academic circles"? where are they? are they truly independent? what are the secondary sources they use? And most importantly what happens when their secondary sources are disputed? --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

(Moved from #Rename to Sri Lankan State Terrorism. — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

What are neutral words? All words are neutral when they are used individually. But give different meaning and conveys a different message when used with other words.To create a article named "State terrorism in SL there needs to be proved "state terror" from a NPOV. It's a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to go for your POV which is not verifiable by independent sources. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To reply to (some of) both of NavodEranda's messages: The article currently contains many links that look reliable and neutral at first glance; at least to me. So it seems that there is a neutral reason for naming it something along the lines of state terrorism. You did a good job at refuting references in Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka‎#SL Army in Tamil homeland; if you can do the same for the refernces that back up the name of the article, then it would indeed have to be renamed.

If I may add a general remark: I'm not too happy about the term "state terrorism" to begin with, because it is a controversial term anywhere - independent of the situation in SL. I am also not clear where the distinction to Human rights in Sri Lanka#Abuses by the government is. But Taprobanus seems to see a clear distinction there. He has in the past often convinced me by just writing or improving articles. Taprobanus, would it be possible for you to make that distinction clear by improving that section? — Sebastian 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the citations look reliable. However, some might be biased, in which case, it will be explicitly attributed. Still the article can be written much better than now. Watchdogb (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Overview table

Now that a few reasons for and against some of the options have been presented, let's start summarizing them in a table like this. I will start with what I see; please feel free to add short keywords to this table after full text explanations in the sections above. Please also correct me if I misrepresented your reasons. — Sebastian 18:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Legend

ST = state terrorism

Question about a source

This has been used by the author of the website across Misplaced Pages to add his personal commentary. I have no problems with the commentary but the source fails all WP:RS requirements. It has no oversight, no one peer reviews the views and does not back it up with academic sources. It is original research that too with a very partisn point of view. What do we do ? Do I take to the RS sources discussion site or resolve it here ? Taprobanus (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

By all means, let's decide this here! We have built up all of WP:SLR#QS by discussing it here, and it became a cornerstone of our success. There's no reason to change that, just because we had so many other discussions here in the mean time. I only forget what our process was back then (and I'm too lazy to look it up). I think we gave it two days, and if no objection was raised, it was decided. So I gather you are proposing it should be classified as an unreliable source, rather than as QS. Correct? — Sebastian 16:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly a website maintained by individuals so it fails even QS, yes Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Any feed back on this or can we archive it as a non reputable source ? because for those who are dealing with this matter, there are number of WP:RS books on this matter. Taprobanus (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Two days are long passed - just feel free to go ahead and add it to the list. That's the way we've always done it, and it worked. Any member can do that. — Sebastian 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Incidents

This chapter contains temporary issues as opposed to long term issues such as content disputes, which are in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the "resolved" tag means that an incident has been taken care of, not necessarily that we reached unanimous agreement. — Sebastian 02:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New sections

Since most people (including myself, ahem) simply add new sections at the bottom of this page, regardless of which chapter they fit in, I'm adding this new chapter so it doesn't look like they are all content issues. Of course this raises the question if the distinction is really so helpful, but I think it is because it helps us focus on content. — Sebastian 17:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about an edit

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)

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)

 DoneTaprobanus (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How to deal with newbies

Newbies ususlly get involved in conflict related articles. Please see User_talk:Pumaaa123. I would like to bring to attention the interactions of editors keeping in mind WP:BITE. Are we being helpful or hounding the guy out of Misplaced Pages ? Also do four edits qualify as WP:VANDALISM to be able to use anti-vandal bot? Also his edits , edits have been summarily removed. Agian, is this the way to deal with conflict realted articles, can we just remove the citation if it fails WP:RS or move it to talk page as per convention ? thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question! This is indeed a dilemma: While we don't want to bite newbies, we need to care about the integrity of our articles, too. If we make it too easy for newbies, we will encourage people to push their POV by disguising as newbies. I'm not sure if that's the case for the editor you mention, but I would like us to keep that dilemma in mind.

Regarding the specific case you mention: There was not just the revert of four edits, but also one of three edits before that. Those three edits were clearly not vandalism. After that first revert, the user committed real vandalism, such as removing the blue box. This may have been a knee-jerk reaction to inappropriately being called a vandal the first time. We don't want such escalations here; maybe we should officially warn both participants of that escalation. Pumaaa123 has already been warned appropriately. Normally, I would say both warnings should be entered in our list, but since Pumaaa123 was not listed, we can make an exception and give both a rain check for now. — Sebastian 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at edit patterns, you may see that there seems to be no clarity as to when to use anti-vandal bot as couple of more instances of potential misuse can be noted. What ever is happened is past, but what is more important is that such biting of newbies does not take place in the future along with potential misues of anti-vandal bot. Hopefully we can reiterate it it in SLR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:BITE does not apply here. What fueled the escalation was the abuse of the anti-vandal tool on Lahiru's part, and the subsequent actual vandalism on Pumaaa123's part (as if they wanted to prove that Lahiru was right!). WP:BITE is only a guideline, not a policy. Of course it does not and can not forbid using the anti-vandal tool just because an editor is new - that would rule out most vandals! A much better rule to go by is the rule for the tool itself, which says it can only be used for vandalism - and we have a clear definition for that. Nobody ever claimed that Lahiru has a pattern of biting newcomers, but, as you just said, he may have a pattern of abusing the tool. If that’s the case, we need to do address that. Therefore, can you please explain which instances you meant? — Sebastian 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

When I first saw Puma's edits, I went through his talkpage plus his contribs and noticed that he was warned by me 14 November 2007 for removing the word "militant" from the Tamil Eelam page (this type of edits are typical and I have seen more than 500 similar edits from IPs and from fresh accounts replacing "rebels/militants" with "freedom fighters" as well as with "terrorists"...).

Along with his 3 edits on Black July page I have reverted two more edits from this user on Pandara Vannian and on List of rulers of Sri Lanka which can clearly be taken as typical vandalism by anons and freshmen as I said above. When taking his 1st 3 edits on "Black July" INDIVIDUALLY it can be clearly identified that it is pushing of bias and hatred towards the Sinhalese people and Sri Lankan Government which is a clear violation of WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and of course WP:VANDALISM. So I revert his all edits ("Pandara Vannian" and "Black July" within a minute and "List of rulers of Sri Lanka" two mins later) and also gave ONE Level-2 warning.

On the three reverts I have properly explained the policies which are getting violated by User:Pumaaa123 in my edit summaries and gave a Level-1 notice to him to get an idea about our policy on external links. Also I recommend Taprobanus to have WP:TW on his monobook just to get an understanding about this troublesome tool without making any further fusses.

I am an anti vandal since December, 2006 and i have a fairly good knowledge about identifying and reverting vandalism as well as about the procedure of issuing warnings to the users (levels and templates). Also this WP:TW is just another java script (it's not a bot) on reverting edits and there are many tools which are more powerful than this one. For example VandalProof which I use sometimes. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record: I had replied to Lahiru by e-mail, basically saying that these are just excuses. The facts are clear and simple: Lahiru used an anti-vandalism tool for actions that were not the reversal of vandalism. I had hoped Lahiru would simply acknowledge that he made a mistake, which would have allowed us to move on. Sadly, instead of responding, Lahiru chose to come here for this. I only can take this as a sign that Lahiru is not willing to use the tools he has responsibly. It is therefore my sad duty to officially warn Lahiru. — Sebastian 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE

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)

Are you sure? There are no logs for that redlink. — Sebastian 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 them 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)

A barnstar ? :))))Taprobanus (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New article

A question about this article, TamilNet.tv, It is somebody's personal pet project and a blog. It fails WP:NOR and sure will not have any WP:RS sources. I suggest it to be speedily deleted per Misplaced Pages:CSD#A7. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)