Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/incidents 2009

SLDR Violation of Tamil Eelam

Resolved

Kerr avon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has violated SLDR by removing cited material, without consensus, on an article that is currently protected by SLDR. This use has already been warned for violating SLDR - 1RR- and this is the second such incident. I believe this merits a block, but any remedy to stop any more such violation is welcome. Watchdogb (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of focusing on content, not on editors, it would be better if you provided the actual link to the content that has been changed. I looked at Kerr's last two edits to Tamil Eelam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), here and here and I don't see any removal of cited material there. Kerr is one of our oldest members. Like most here, he generally tries to do the right thing, but makes occasional errors. So maybe this is just an error or misunderstanding. Have you tried talking to him? — Sebastian 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided the link even before under "Materual" I was not explicit enough. The link is here. I did not talk to him because I do not feel it will ratify into anything useful. My earlier conversations with him ended in just more violation of BLP's and such. Watchdogb (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that really was an SLDR violation, and a warning would be appropriate. An experienced editor like him should really know better. However, his edit was not completely without reason. The recent events have led other, more considerate, people to ask if such sections in our articles should be deleted. Luckily, one of them asked about it at Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#Current state of LTTE.

Until now, we just didn't have a good way to cope with this situation. People are too excited to find the time and the nerves to actually rewrite whole sections, particularly when they feel these sections have become irrelevant, so all they can think of is deleting them. I wish Kerr had come here to ask about it instead of following that urge. I could have helped him. For this situation, I specifically created the template {{Current-anytext}}, which can be applied on top of the section as follows:

{{Current-anytext|'''This section describes the situation of 2008 or earlier''' and may not be up to date due to [[Portal:Current events|current events]].}}

That resolved the issue then, and I am confident that it will also resolve the issue in the Tamil Eelam article. — Sebastian 03:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the warning to Kerr though, I ask you not to warn him this time, for the following two reasons: (1) When I checked Kerr's warning of last August, I felt bad for him; I found that the handling of the incidence back then actually did not follow what I had in mind when I wrote Clarification of what 1RR means to us (S3). I regret that I left that section in such a complicated, inconclusive state. (2) The Tamil Eelam incident actually was not a deletion; it was a replacement, as can be seen from the next edit to the article. While that still is a major change that he should have discussed, one can at least see some justification for the replacement. — Sebastian 09:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

Resolved

Article: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

1st revert

2nd revert

I'm sorry, but after the 1st edit I suggested that you discuss changes on the talk page, but you choose to ignore that, and re-revert. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sources in another section in the second edit. As for the rest of the diff, I have the feeling that it is mainly stylistic. The content which has been removed is either redundant, or not prominent enough to be in the WP:LEAD. My intent was to straighten the recent additions by snowolf, not to change the factual content. Jasy jatere (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a revert is "any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part."

This was the part of the text initially,

..militant Tamil nationalist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against the Sri Lankan government since the 1970s in order to create a sovereign socialist Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka (formerly known as Ceylon) which has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War. The LTTE is currently regarded as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list).

I changed it to the following in a series of edits

..militant Tamil nationalist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against Sri Lanka since the 1970s in order to create a seperate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War, which is one of longest runing armed conflicts in Asia. Due to the tactics employed by the Tamil Tigers, including the extensive use of suicide bombing and their recruitment of child soldiers, they are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list).

You reverted to the earlier version, deleting a lot of what I added

..militant Tamil nationalist organization that has engaged in a secessionist campaign since the 1970s in order to create a seperate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War. The Tamil Tigers are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list).

I reverted to my previous version and asked that changes to it be discussed on the talk page

..militant Tamil nationalist organization that has waged a violent secessionist campaign against Sri Lanka since the 1970s in order to create a seperate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War, which is one of longest runing armed conflicts in Asia. Due to the tactics employed by the Tamil Tigers, including the extensive use of suicide bombing and their recruitment of child soldiers, they are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list).

You ignored that and re-reverted to the original version

..militant Tamil nationalist organization that has engaged in a secessionist campaign since the 1970s in order to create a seperate Tamil state in the north and east of Sri Lanka. This campaign has developed into the Sri Lankan Civil War. The Tamil Tigers are currently proscribed as a terrorist organization by 32 countries (see list).

That's 2 reverts. You also deleted content I added to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs twice. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, the second time I moved the content to a section in the body of the article. Jasy jatere (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the second time you deleted a lot of the text I added. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are we to assume 1RR is no longer valid, as in you can do more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me thank you for bringing this here, instead of edit warring. You did the right thing.

As for 1RR, there are several problems with that, which is why I'm proposing to switch to using WP:BRD as a criterion - see #Changing SLRDA below. One of the problems is that it's not so easy to see in complex situations such as this one. I spent about 10 minutes trying to apply 1RR to the edits. (It would have been easier if you had provided diffs, as required by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. But please don't put your time in heaping doing that now; I don't enjoy digging in old dirt, and I think there is a better way to resolve this now.) I think the only thing that will lead to a resolution is to talk about the issue, as is already happening in the next section. — Sebastian 20:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a constructive discussion going on about the issue at #LTTE article intro below, I would like to close this as resolved. I know this may not seem entirely fair, but I'd rather first reach an agreement what exactly we mean by 1RR. Are there any objections? — Sebastian 07:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Ranilb5

Resolved

Edits on 14 Feburary did a lot of damage to the LTTE article. Careless deletion of named refs has left a host of cite errors. Much of the edit is unsourced. Normally, I'd revert before the damage is more difficult to recover, but what to do? What's right from the Project perspective? --Mtd2006 (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting the changes. The articles is now so biased, that we can't possibly keep it that way any longer until we come to an agreement through discussion. I'll also drop a note on the talk page of Ranilb5 (talk · contribs). We can discuss about it afterwards and come to a suitable conclusion. Chamal ^talk 06:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree about bias. I noticed these changes because I cleaned refs in the article and restored dead links from archives. It pained me to see that work vanish. --Mtd2006 (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]