Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard | Incidents

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Case closed and followed up by the report at the AN. Any further comments are to be addressed at their appropriate venues. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1 Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed
2 Unblocking Lahiru k and Netmonger
3 Admins?
4 Moving forward
- 4.1 Here's the list of participants

[edit] Sri Lanka/LTTE blocks - reviewed

The following is a joint statement made by admins chaser, Haemo and FayssalF:

Following this archived thread and based upon a review of the evidence presented and in consultation with some other administrators about the technical details of Allocated Portable IPs and checkuser, the blocks of User:Lahiru k, User:Netmonger, User:Kaushini and User:Arsath will remain in place. The other evidence presented via emails and the CheckUser case page is either unpersuasive or of tangential relevance. It must be noted indeed that Wikipedia editors are not in a position to assess the legitimacy of a scanned document. Therefore, the "confirmed" checkuser result remains the most powerful piece of evidence available to us.

We suggest that no other accounts be created to evade this finding, as future sockpuppetry cases will be pursued thoroughly, with checkuser if necessary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC) --chaser - t 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Haemo 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

fayssal, I and others have so far given you/haemo/chaser reasons why this block is unfair and erroneous. With all these evidences isn't it obvious that the original Check user had made a mistake and Lahiru_k and Arsath are not the same person ? So, your decisions to back up that wrong decision and to keep them blocking for something they didn't do, is like condemning an innocent person to death while knowing his innocence,　isn't it ? May I ask you ,after going through all the evidences and contributions of the users(mainly lahiru_k and Arsath), do you still believe they are the same ?? Could you please explain us how the confirmed check user results confirmed lahiru_k and arsaths the same(with evidences 100% contrary to it)?? This is a serious issue, which might led to the blocking of all the Sri Lankan based editors coz anyone could be labelled as Lahiru_ks socks. Only new' and comprehensive check could give a comprehensive details regarding matter.Quite frankly don't see why shouldn't we do it? After all wikipedia is not a dictatorship,is it? We don't unfairly block editors, do we ? Your attention and actions is highly appreciated here. Than you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Histrionics comparing a website to capital punishment and a dictatorship have no place here. Checkusers are well aware of the technicalities involved in IP allocation, and a "confirmed" checkuser result means a solid IP relationship. There's enough evidence of similarity in their contribution history to corroborate the checkuser result.--chaser - t 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And thats the same thing we dispute here. We can clearly see all the contributions made by the disputed IP, and we see not a single edit made by lahiru_k there!!! And there are strong,credible reasons to believe the earlier check user was erroneous. And I don not any reason to make argument based on an erroneous report(if we were to trust wiki scan) And we have a wikipedian article disputing your claims regarding IPs,and we have strong case of discrimination against Sri Lankan Institutes.To sum up this, there is no evidence that Arsath and lahiru_k the same, hence blocks are unfair. There is no evidence kaushini is lahiru_k, kaushini just uses gate way computers just like hundreds of other students at her school and if we allow Cambridge students to use shared IPs ,why don't we do the same for SL students? Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the emails that FaysaalF, Chaser, and Haemo have seen, but I've looked at the SSP case and the Checkuser requests, and I agree with the blocks. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some emails are really so private and contains personal data (Passport and ID documents of User:Lahiru k and meatpuppet User:Kaushini). I was the only one who has seen that (at Lahiru's request) and noticed days after that the immigration date stamped is mid-February 2006 while the metadata of this image uploaded to Commons by Lahiru k shows February 2005. Lahiru tried to prove that he is one and not a sock master. But was Lahiru k lying? I believe he is lying because after i informed him about the inaccuracy he said he forgot to set the time of his camara. Ummm! What Chaser and Haemo have seen are other details including off-wiki activities of Lahiru k which amount to campaigning and recruiting meat puppets. There's also this thing about sharing accounts (Lahiru's English goes from bad to good). In his emails Netmonger says he is Mystìc (talk · contribs) and Arsath (talk · contribs) and a muslim while Lahiru is not. I know that Muslims in Sri Lanka speak Tamil but here Netmonger does say that his mother tongue is Sinhala. Months later he said his mother tongue is Tamil. You can speak a dozen of languages but you can't have 2 mother tongues especially in the Indian subcontinent where "mother tongue" is used to indicate the language of one's ethnic group (ethnic tongue). I see no reason to assume good faith anymore and listen to weak "evidences" of innocence.

P.S. There a real issue of shared passwords. Both sides are believed to practice this unacceptable behavior. Please see this total mess. I am looking at it as well. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both editors use Sri Lanka Telecom as their ISP, which randomly assigns IP addresses to their customer. As proof of this, Lahriu k edited his sandbox without logging in, disconnected from the internet, reconnected and edited his sandbox again. He did this more than 30 times over 20 minutes and got assigned a different IP address every time.[1] There is no way he could have faked that, and it proves that there is an undeniable possibility that Lahiru and Netmonger could easily have been assigned the same IP address at different times.

The only "behavioral evidence" presented an the SSP case is that both users have voted on a number of AFDs, both users have referred to WP:DGAF, "which not many people know about", and they both used the phrase "I'm not going to waste my time". As the comment has noted, apart from the IP addresses, the remaining evidence is "not persuasive" to indicate they are the same person.

So the only proof that FayssalF has to justify his block is that both Lahiru k and Netmonger were assigned the same IP at different times. Given the circumstances, that is no where near enough evidence to block two users. Also both users are willing to come on IRC with any admin who wishes, to confirm that they are two separate people and let the admins ping their IP addresses via IRC to prove that they both edits from SLT IPs.

Note that all three of the above admins have been involved with the users they blocked before this case came up. And when I questioned the block FayssalF promptly archived his user talk page without replying to my last post, so the opinions of uninvolved administrators will be appreciated. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You've already gotten the opinion of one uninvolved administrator (me). The IP evidence is quite compelling. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have read AmiDaniel's technical opinion at the Village pump (technical). We are not supposed to go further than that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you read what he said?

"For the most part, no individual will be the custodian of a single portable address. I would actually say that, quite on the contrary of being static, most portable IP addresses are likely shared by multiple individuals or entities,"

Lahiru's edits to his sandbox confirm that IP addresses are shared by multiple SLT customers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And how many IPs there are to be allocated? Too many. How many Sri Lankan wikipedia editors are out there? Only a few. Do the math.

From AmiDaniel --> you're far, far more likely to find out the exact nature of how this IP address is used by contacting Sri Lanka Telelcom than you are by asking me :) This is not the problem of Wikipedia. This should be dealt w/ between Sri Lankan editors and their providers.

From what i know --> allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. And this is tricky and disturbing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand how you are contradicting yourself? The edits to the sandbox confirm that SLT assigns different IP addresses to its customers every time the reconnect to the internet. Do you dispute that, or are you just trying to ignore it? So how could it be that there a greater possibility that the same IP was assigned to the same person twice, than that it was assigned to two different people?

"This should be dealt w/ between Sri Lankan editors and their providers."? Do you understand how ridiculous that comment is? AOL has a similar system, where they change the IP address they assign their customers every few minutes. Has anyone suggested everyone who users AOL stop editing Wikipedia or all the thousands of users will be banned as sockpuppets? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything i've just said may sound ridiculous to you but i clearly explained it above --> And how many IPs there are to be allocated? Too many. How many Sri Lankan wikipedia editors are out there? Only a few. Do the math. Most people know about dynamically assigned IPs but assigning the same IP to 2 users (who happen to edit the same articles) out of 20 million people is enough to say "hey, weird". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that there is a bigger possibility that an IP will be assigned to the same person twice months apart than the possibility that it be assigned to two different people?

And again, given the evidence, do you acknowledge that SLT assigns different IP addresses to its customers every time they log in?

Also, no, you haven't explained why you basically said you're going to block everyone who edits from SLT as sockpuppets, unless they some how sort it out with the ISP. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, if SLT is assigning different IPs to its customers when they log on, they're behaving like most ISPs. This removes the "allocated portable" concern, and means that the Checkusers were dealing with the same type of IP evidence they deal with when the suspected users are using Verizon, Roadrunner, SBC, et al. If anything, this should increase our confidence in the Checkuser results. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What checkuser? There was no checkuser run on this case. Both editors were blocked long before a checkuser could be requested. And if you acknowledge that different IP were used, how could say that they were the same person? Because they used the same ISP? That's not how things work. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are totally wrong. All accounts were blocked on late October 14th and early 15th. The CU case was opened at Oct. 14th afternoon w/ quite compelling evidence. There have been around 10 admins reviewing this case and i think you are just wasting your time here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That comment says so so much. We have an admin blocking two users for sockpuppetery, when he doesn't even know the difference between a sockpuppet case and a check user request. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what you think and this is what i found. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One, the only reason you can have to block the two editors is if Lahiru is Netmonger. The other accounts have no relevance to this case as Lahiru was already blocked for one week with regard to them.

Two, the only evidence you have to say Lahiru is Netmonger is two edits on November 22, 2006 and July 17, 2007 from an IP address which has been proven to be dynamically assigned to different people all the time. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop asking these same questions repeatedly, Snowolf, because that can be disruptive. You're not going to get the answers you want to hear, and you are just filling the page with comments. If the results here make you unhappy, file an appeal with Arbcom. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My ISP assigns a different IP every time you reconnect, but since I'm on DSL I rarely get re-assigned. I don't think the fact that Lahiru k demonstrated IP switching shows anything - it could be that he's learned how to disconnect his modem for five minutes to get a new IP address.--chaser - t 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Way to assume bad faith there. And its 32 different IP addresses within 23 minutes. Even if you have to be disconnected for "5 minutes", the edits by IPs shown to prove this were made months apart. That could easily mean the same IP was assigned to different users. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the Checkuser case on Lahiru k; Lahiru k and Mystic (among other sockpuppets) were votestacking on a TfD discussion--that wasn't "months apart". --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lahiru k was blocked for sockpuppetry for one week after that case in November last year. End of story there. Where's the checkuser you're talking about for this latest incident, where FayssalF is claiming Lahiru k and Netmonger are sockpuppets? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make it clearer exactly what you're disputing. Checkuser showed that Lahiru k = Mystic (and others); other evidence shows that Mystic = Netmonger. I don't have to link to the transitive property, do I? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

What "other evidence"? The fact that they were assigned the same IP address by an ISP whom everyone here has pretty much admitted assigns IP addresses randomly to its customers? Do you have any other real evidence that the two users are the same? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 05:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There's one evidence and we do not care about "other evidence". We tried to review this and accepted some explanations by email BUT most of those explanations were too doubtful and in many times inaccurate(Passport stamps and Metadata at Commons, English usage, etc). Bear in mind that whether an IP is "static" or "dynamic" is determined by the way that a service provider assigns addresses to subscribers, not by the way that the IP addresses are allocated by the IANA. I already mentioned to you that allocated address space is address space that is distributed to IRs for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them. Please stop it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop it? Why don't you stop ignoring the evidence presented here that SLT does assign different IPs to its customers everytime they reconnect?

You want more proof? Straight from the SLT website

'SLT has commenced offering ADSL facilities in some parts of Colombo since April 2002. It intends to expand its coverage during the year to other areas of Colombo and its suburbs. Speeds offered by SLT are 2 Mbit/s download and 512 Kbit/s upload, or 512 Kbit/s download and 128 Kbit/s upload with dynamic IP.

And from IP address as to what a dynamic IP address is

...in situations when the computer's IP address changes frequently (such as when a user logs on to a network through dialup or through shared residential cable) it is called a Dynamic IP address.

The fact that IANA assigns ranges to ISPs "for the purpose of subsequent distribution by them" does not mean the ISP also assigns different IP addresses to its customers. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am getting more detailed updates from emails supposedly belonging to Lahiru k and Netmonger. I am waiting for some other details from those email accounts. I see that you are more concerned about this mess than they do and probably you need to tone it down. I've been using ADSL for years now and i never saw someone (editing wikipedia) being assigned the IPs i am assigned. My point is that there are probably millions connected in Sri Lanka and the chance for a same IP to be assigned to 2 or 3 particular wikipedia users is close to zero unless they are the same users or they are based at the same place which is not the case. That's my whole point of the story. You never answered that. So please wait for the upcoming details. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

First, you have absolutely no right to tell me what I should be doing right now. If I see you unfairly blocking a user, I'll take it as far as I can. So if you made a mistake you aren't going to cover it up that easily. Second, to put it bluntly, you need to stop trying to mislead the community. How would you know if another user was assigned your IP address? Do you have checkuser privileges to find out who's using what IP? And again, more falsities, "there are millions of people using ADSL in Sri Lanka"? Nope. Coverage is limited to certain areas, and the number of users from Colombo can't exceed more than 10,000 - 20,000.

I don't want to, but I can keep saying this all day if you don't listen, the two edits you cite to show Netmonger is Lahiru k were made more than 7 months apart. So unless lahiru was connected to the internet throughout, never disconnected and was therefore never assigned a different IP address, why do you think the chances were greater that the IP would be assigned to the same person rather than to someone else? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you assuming bad faith? I fear you are disrupting by accusing me of "falsities" and "misleading the community". Please behave better and let us work. As you have seen, more than 10 admins have seen and reviewed the case. What i asked you to do is to stop your accusations and wait. I have the right to do so while waiting for new updates. Bear in mind that i was the one who opened this case to be reviewed and it took us days to come up w/ this final review. And once more, i am reviewing it again while you are ranting. Do not disrupt the process or else you'll be blocked for disruption. You told us about your mind but do never again assume bad faith and accuse people of "falsities" and "misleading the community". -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you disputing that Netmonger=Mystic/Arsath? Arsath/Netmonger confirmed that in an email to me. If you're still arguing about the checkuser connecting those accounts to Lahiru k, then that's rather pointless speculation, considering only Dmcdevit knows the details that went into the "confirmed" result, and even he has probably forgotten those by now (assuming they're not logged when a check is performed).--chaser - t 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Am I assuming bad faith? The guy who blocked two editors based on some very sketchy evidence without even giving them a chance to argue their case is actually asking me that? And if you have any respect for this process, you'll answer this; Are you saying with 100 percent certainty that no other editor has even been assigned your IP address?

Also, then why did you open this case? Hoping that everyone will agree with you? And now that someone is disputing your decision all you can say is basically "shut up and go to sleep"?

Chaser, you say "Arsath/Netmonger confirmed that in an email to me". Did he also "confirm" to you that he was not Lahiru? Are you intending to selectively believe what he says, based on whether it agrees with what you want? What I am saying is the only proof you have that Netmonger = Lahiru are two edits made by the same IP (which is dynamically assigned) 7 months apart. That is just not good enough to block genuine two editors. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't let them argue their case? We've probably exchanged 30 emails! As to the connection, we have a checkuser result that you seem to be ignoring. And yes, I presume that people's statements against their own interests are credible. It's their statements in their own interests that I'm always skeptical of, especially in light of the aforementioned checkuser. The reason we opened this thread was to indicate that review had taken place - not to request review.--chaser - t 08:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You exchanged 30 emails after you blocked them. They didn't even have a chance to explain the dynamic IP allocation system to the community. So you're saying he was so stupid that he was truthful in claiming that he was he was a permanently blocked account, but lied in dening he was another account which wasn't blocked?

Yes, the checkuser case said Lahiru k was Mystic, but how many times to I have to keep repeating this, he was already blocked for that. (coping from above) The only proof you have that Netmonger = Lahiru are two edits made by the same IP (which is dynamically assigned) 7 months apart. And the only reason you have to block the two users is if they are the same. No other accounts come into the picture.

First FayssalF confirms he doesn't know the difference between a suspected sock puppet case and a checkuser request. Now you seem to think that three users can decide on something and expect the community to blindly follow their decision. Coming from an admin, I find that comment astounding. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

- They didn't even have a chance to explain the dynamic IP allocation system to the community. Misleading. Check their user talk pages and see what admins who reviewed the cases thought and decided. When a CU come up w/ positive findings we block as a preventive way and then we discuss.

- First FayssalF confirms he doesn't know the difference between a suspected sock puppet case and a checkuser request. Nonsense.

- expect the community to blindly follow their decision. The community has been verifying this mess as well and all they know is what those bastard 3 admins know.

- No admin and no user (except Iwazaki for obvious reasons) has agreed w/ you. Iwazaki is so intelligent in asking for what he needs. The blocked accounts are handling civil discussions w/ me via emails. Ask Lahiru to forward to you the emails and read them carefully. You are just disrupting, shouting, ranting and accusing admins of lies and "misleadin the community" instead of handling a cool discussion. You are not far away from an appropriate block snowolf. I am not going to repeat this more than enough. You spoke and now you wait and see. Unless you keep it cool instead of disrupting and accusing admins of lying you'd certainly be blocked. Think about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal my friend, You says its only me(for obvious reasons !!!) and snowy are defending them here. Isn't it sad ?When people are unfairly blocked and no one here defending them? Even if it is only one, shouldn't you think justice should be done for, good wikipedian editors like lahiru_k and Arsath(just see there contributions).Its a great insult to them to compare them with the other side and say both sides are disruptive. Take a look at the other side, most of them have no edits other than their nationalistic range. And to call both sides shared passwords is also erroneous, when we clearly have one user named tabrobanus who was the only accused here(I ll take that case as soon as this one finishes).And you have made some comments regarding mother tongue of Arsath, yes I believe he could either say Sinhalese,Tamil or both, his mother tongue. He is a muslim and muslims in SL are ethnically muslims, regardless of their mother tongue. SO its not really a big issue for them.Finally, I can see that those block users have put an utmost trust on you and even sending their highly confidential info to you.All I can see from this are these editors are genuine and there just merely want to come here and contribute to the wikipedian success. SO to block them based on erroneous report and wrong assumptions, is a great insult to wikipedia it self. And we don't hang innocent people, do we? Hope the whole wikipedian community take a deep and careful look at this problem and immediately remove these unfair blocks.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it, if you stop calling kaushini a meat puppet.Because she is not what you call her.She wanted to be a genuine editor but only after 2 months

she was blocked unfairly,so you can't expect much contributions from her.People need some time to adapt to wikipedia(I needed and I am sure kaushini needed that too). There are hundreds of other students at gateway(her school) and I am sure most of them uses school computer and who knows some even may editing wikipedia. And to call them all,lahiru_ks meat puppets doesn't make any sense,does it? IF we were to allow Cambridge University to share IPs, why discriminate a poor country like SL ? Not many people have Internet at home in SL and they use school computers.Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) She was not blocked after two months; Laihru, apparently, goes to school with her, and solicited her to support his POV on a number of deletion debates in 2006. She hasn't edited since. If she was actually here to contribute, she had almost an entire year to edit — which didn't happen. Her last actual edit was in November of 2006, and was (suprise) against a template which Laihru was blocked for sockpuppeting over in the same time-period. That's classic meatpuppetry. --Haemo 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just blocked indef a sock of someone. He was speaking of the same story i mentioned above (sharing and hacking passwords). I don't care to whom it belongs but it is just obvious and unacceptable. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Netmonger

It's probably worth noting that on his User talk page Netmonger acknowledges that he was previously Mystic/Arsath. He also notes that 222.165.157.129 is an IP he uses at his office; this IP is unlikely to be dynamically assigned, so Snowolf's complaints about dynamic IPs (which are uncompelling in any case) don't apply to this address. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

BUT, could you please show us that IP was used by lahiru_k? We have one erroneous check user which claims that was shared, but I have proved ,thanks to the wikiscan that these IPs were never shared! Why don't you take a look at the IP contributions and let us know whether it was shared by them ? Also, why do you think snowolf remarks of IP addressing is uncompelling ? Did yougo through what I and snwofolf wrote here and at SSP page ? Did you even read the IP address article at wikipedia ? It clearly says IP alone shouldn't be used to identify users, because of DHCP. And yet, we have a sad situation where people are intentionally ignoring those facts. thank you Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 00:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Other than IP, lahiru_k and Netmonger are pronouncing a unique expression Well opinions change overtime don't they? [2][3].Laeber 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet another obvious sockpuppet of someone. This is truly intolerable. --Haemo 04:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock them

Ok.. now. I've been following this case for the last week or so.. and not everything seems right. Lahiru and Netmonger both have been very good contributors to wikipedia and have hundreds(if not thousands) of constructive edits against their name. This is no way to treat such valued contributors. If they've done something wrong, then they should and they will pay for it. On the one hand we have users like Wikiraja who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, obscenity, vandalism, disruption, 3RR and almost every other wiki-offence under the sun roaming free under the noses of these very admins who've blocked L and N; the longest wikiraja ever served was 3 months! I am sure there're dozens of other wikirajas roaming free. otoh, we have overzealous vigilantism in the case of L and N who by any yardstick are far more valuable to the community than the likes of Wikiraja. And what do they get for that? Indefs!! This is hypocrisy at its worst. If all that a multiple repeat offender like Wikiraja can get is 3 months then L and N should get a lot less.. even if they're guilty!

I request that admins immediately unblock both Lahiru and Netmonger so they can argue their case themselves. They can be 'topic banned'(no editing SL-Tamil related articles and no edits other than minor cleanup or simple vandalism reverts, spell check etc.,) or even prohibited from making any edits at all other than argue their case. And dont tell me they can argue their case from their talk pages. that is nonsense. This case has spilled into many talk pages and across wiki spaces already and is getting increasingly difficult to keep track of or make sense of. If they have to argue their cases from their talk pages, then I demand that the admins take it upon themselves to copy and paste every single comment of theirs in every relevant discussion. This is of course not going to happen and therefore, the admins should unblock them. Blocking and especially indeffing is not a joke and certainly not when it involves editors of long standing. Admins should be more circumspect in handing indefs and indeffing L and N is seeming like a knee-jerk reaction. Also Fayssal's past involvement in conflicts with the blockees render his blockings highly inappropriate.

Chaser says he exchanged thirty mails with the blockees. It is fair that the community knows what transpired(except of course, things which could violate their privacy). Just saying.. "I exchanged 30 mails and it didnt convince me" doesnt fly. If it was so unconvincing, I want to see what that is. Just as I'd have liked to know what it was if he'd found it convincing. Blocking at the first chance without a fair trial in full view of the community is just a case of overzealous admins eager to gather 'trophies' throwing their weight around. Similar misplaced machismo on part of a certain admin a few months ago laid waste WP:INDIA - that had until then been one of the most prolific wikiprojects around. Also, in this case, it is plain as day to anybody who has followed the SL wiki debacles that both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rife from the Canadian tamil club. I guess even one or more of the admins involved here said just that. That being the case, admins should treat this case with more caution and be more consistent. I have myself in the past noted Taprobanus' english go from excellent to average to bad. So? Indeffing without the consent of the community is a very bad thing to do and can only exacerbate things. imo, indeffing without community consensus should be a strict no-no. Wikipedia is no oligarchy. Indeffing and then asking the blockees(who happen to be editors of long standing) to argue such a complex case from their talk pages is ridiculous and humiliating. Sarvagnya 23:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sar, please refrain from Personal Attacks. Your allegations on wikiraja are not only personal attacks but you seem to accuse him without proof. I know that the admins have asked for both parties to take it easy and cool off, however, this is in direct violation of WP:NPA. Sar, you should immediately come to the point without pointing , without proof, your finger at anyone. Another problem here is the attack on Taprobanus. While what you may say maybe true, there is no evidence to your claim. To throw accusations around without proof is Personal Attack. Sure, everyone mistype letters and on certain occasions people do make spelling errors. However, to accuse people of sock puppetry or meat puppetry is against the core rules of wikipedia. Admins please take note of this. This is provocation of users who have been friends (Taprobanus) of Lahiru and netmonger and accusation of wikiraja who, even now, to my knowledge, has not even said a single word about this mess. I would also fiercely demand an apology for saying sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry is rife from the Canadian tamil club. This is an attack on only the Canadian Tamil editors, but to the whole community. This is tantamount of attacking an ethnicity. Sar, if you have proof of any of your allegations go ahead and show it to the community and admins but if you don't just leave others out of this. Watchdogb 00:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not about WikiRaja, or anyone else. The Sri Lanka-related issues have been rife with bad behavior on all sides. If either side abuses sockpuppets, they will be blocked — community patience is running out with this group of editors as a whole. If you disagree with the assessment above, which has been reviewed by a number of different admins at this point, then there are remedies above you can pursue. --Haemo 01:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You say some good points and fail to understand others. Admins are editors and most of them treat cases after being posted here. When you use the word "hypocrisy" you should be sure that it concerns the same admin treating related cases while failing to apply similar measures for somehow similar violations. Most of the time, it is not the same admin who treat the other related cases (i.e. WikiRaja). It is not FayssalF, it is not Haemo and it is not Chaser who dealt w/ WikiRaja.

Another point. You claim that i have had past involvment w/ the blocked users which render my blocks more innapropriate. This is totally and absolutely wrong. I've received a barnstar from Lahiru k For being BOLD without getting BOWLED on Sri Lankan issues :) while i have never been in direct contact w/ Netmonger. So your Fayssal's past involvement in conflicts with the blockees render his blockings highly inappropriate is really unfounded and inappropriate itself. If i had blocked WikiRaja, i'd have been accused of the same. It is just everytime is the same. Admins accused of bias when most of the times it is not the case.

Back to the good points. I've asked the blocked accounts to post their defense in compact way so people would understand easily. The idea was to copy and paste them here.

Back to unblocking those accounts. All admins (w/ no single exception) who reviewed this case decided that the evidence that Lahiru k and Netmonger are one is clear. See the archived case. See the talk pages. See it here. So in order for me to unblock i must have the same degree of consensus from those admins and the community. In order to achieve that i asked yesterday those accounts to leave a clear and compact defense at their talkpage so we can paste it here. Since i've been recieving emails from those accounts pledging for an opportunity to defend themselves i have no problem to copy and paste what they have to say here. The problem w/ unblocking them now in order to do so is the potential drama we would be having here. All pro and non pro Sri Lanka/Tamil editors would gather here and make this place another arena for their dispute. So my idea is simple. We'll do that but i'll urge involved editors not to participate here in order to for the community to sort this out for once. I've just pasted it below. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from Netmonger's talk page

I am blocked on the basis, that my account is a sockpuppet account of Lahiru_k, earlier I used to edit with the name Mystìc I created this account in January 2006 see log.

I admit I am Arsath aka Mystìc aka Netmonger
I am not Lahiru_k (repeating it for the millionth time)
Arsath account was renamed to Mystìc
Once Mystìc account was blocked I recreated Arsath account to make my case for the SSP report filed against me.
I stopped using the Arsath account and switched to Netmonger since I wanted to remain anonymous. I've not used the Arsath account for anything except for the arbComm case I opened at that time see contributions, so I was not sockpuppeting and I have clearly said that I am Mystìc.
I edit from this ip 222.165.157.129 from my office and at home I use ADSL. Lahiru_k and I have never shared this ip you can check this as well.
Sri Lanka Telecom ADSL connection IP's are assigned dynamically (mostly to safeguard there leased line market). this could be verifed by checking other users who edit from Sri Lanka, who are confirmed (in a rather bitter way) not us, please run a checkuser on my account and User:DoDoBirds,User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam,User:Rajsingam and User:Lahiru_k, you would find the same IP ranges. Admin FayssalF would bear witness that User:Rajsingam is not Lahiru_k or Netmonger or Arsath.

Also check the SLT Website which says http://www.sltnet.lk/adsl/index.htm that they assign dynamic ips to customers

About my language skills, I speak native level of English, Sinhala and Tamil, I dont want to be divisive, I have said this before see my user page Check the user boxes of Mystic, if you want to know why, I'll forward my explanation to Fayzal.

if you guys have any more questions please email me or post them here I am more than willing to answer them.
Could an admin with checkuser privileges get involved in this case? Please.

NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why my Mystìc account was blocked in the previous occasion

Point one

The first checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Lahiru_k blocked not only the Mystìc account it blocked the accounts Psivapalan (talk · contribs),Sri119 (talk · contribs), Mama007 (talk · contribs),Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs) and Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) as well. I really dont know how the checkuser concluded they are socks but looking at the pictures of the checkuser tool here I think Dmcdevit would've seen the similarity between the Dynamically assigned IP addresses of our ADSL connections, which would be shared by many other Sri Lankan ADSL users. And as far as I know Lahiru_k admitted that he is the sockmaster of Snsudharsan (talk · contribs) account. And Lahiru's account was blocked for some time (I dont know for how long) for sockpuppeting.

This particular account was never used to vote on the template deletion discussion.

Ajgoonewardene (talk · contribs) please see his/her contributions,

the last edit of course was very contentious and would have hurt lot of feelings of the LTTE sympathizers check it out, but the grammar I must admit, is far far better than of Lahiru ( I am sorry I had to say this :-))

Point Two

At that point as far as I know nobody knew whats my ip's are, my office IP address which is 222.165.157.129 was revealed only when I edited some of the user talk pages and arbComm case WHICH I OPENED without logging in. They opened the SSP case after I proposed one of RaveenS dearest templates in wikipedia for deletion for its biased nature, please see here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_15#Template:State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka, the template was eventually deleted and replaced with a template I CREATED .i.e Template:Sri Lankan Conflict.

A humble request to sympathizers of Lahiru and Me

please dont bite the admins, I know Fayzal and Haemo were little fast in blocking our accounts, they were not to be blamed for anything, it's the people who filed the request. I am in touch with Fayzal and Chaser through email and they have been very patiently reading all the emails I've sent them, I dont know the exact details of the communications they have had with Lahiru but I am sure they are listening to his side of the story as well. I sincerely thank him for taking their precious time on this matter. And the rest of you please don't take my equest as an attempt to butter the admins to get my work done; thats the other clubs style and not mine. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 20:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would really like you to address, clearly, the circumstances surrounding the prior confirmed checkuser that explained Mystic was a sockpuppet of Laihru. Because that's the contentious part here. Checkusers are aware of dynamic IP issues, so that doesn't sufficiently explain what happened. --Haemo 18:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, if u have anymore questions let me know, and please post this at ANI NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 19:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing but a wiki version of the Sri Lanka civil wars. Can't they just all learn to get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would just point out that I didn't block either of your accounts. Nonetheless, what I'm looking for is some explanation of the situation surrounding the confirmed checkuser. See, the thing is that a confirmed checkuser is very compelling evidence — checkusers are aware of problems that dynamic IP addresses face, and would not confirm on that basis. --Haemo 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This drama must come to an end

Ok fair enough. The problem w/ this wiki conflict is its originality and thus its complexity. Well, now i can almost be sure that both parties (pro-Sri Lanka and pro-Tamil editors) edit sometimes while they are together. I mean some accounts here gather at schools and this is why the history of ALLOCATED PORTABLE has been hard to swallow and why the CheckUser is accurate. At least, the video that i watched recently (featuring User:Lahiru k and User:Kaushini) live or study together. Well, i am personally still AGF and believe that the ids are not faked and , as i said before, we should assume we are dealing w/ normal people and not criminals. In the video you can see Lahiru and Kaushini gathering at a school lab (it may be an internet club). By the way, Iwazaki, this is why (see other details below) i've been labeling Kaushini's account as a meatpuppet. It is not for nothing. You can see the IDs and the passports in detail again.

In a prior case, back on March 2007, User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam who was the subject of a deleted article stated at Netmonger's talk page that pro-Tamil editors shared passwords which was denied by User:Taprobanus (ex User:RaveenS). He had also stated that they [pro-Tamil editors] are schoolmates.

After reading many emails and analyzed the writing styles, i now personally believe that User:Netmonger is not Lahiru k. They probably edit(ed) from the same place sometime(s).

Well, we got a situation where both parties of the dispute are most probably editing from the same place (camps separated of course) and sometimes they correct each other's grammatical errors (at least in some cases) and that's the reason why sometimes you see different styles but contributing w/ one account. It may also mean that sharing passwords is another alternative since both camps don't accuse each other and make no fuss against this possible practice.

All in all, the story and the puzzle is more complicated than we've believed and i am really feeling that i, probably other admins, we have broken the limits of adminship (becoming detectives somehow). I really dislike it but well, at least we could get a more clear understanding of how stuff works in the Sri Lanka / LTTE wikispace. Probably the same is happening in other wiki arenas but i won't enter there.

This is my synthesis of this whole mess and therefore i'll leave now the decision to my co-admins to whether block further accounts of the other side after digging more into suspecious password and meatpuppeting allegations or unblock all the accounts which were blocked recently. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is my advice, FayssalF, just because you get bombarded by scores of emails from Netmonger and lahiru_k with new and wild claims doesn't mean its relevant nor its true. There is checkuser evidence, according to you and other admins, the best means of verification within wikipedia and there is other evidence as you had earlier mentioned. The sheer number of rebuttals and seriousness with which this is being pursued by those deemed sockpuppets just raises more suspicions and is very unusual. How is this claim of password sharing between a certain other user have anything to do with the blocks of lahiru_k and netmonger. This is not at all evident from your post. It looked like an investigation was pursued and seemed to have gone stale, though I wasn't around then to know any of the details. If something merits investigation, then it needs to be pursued no doubt, but such an investigation shouldn't be coupled to any other cases. Whatever outcome from that case can't and shouldn't have any impact on this case. I also want to stress that your characterisation of "Sri Lanka/LTTE wikispace" is overly simplified, dare I say wrong. I also think accepting or tolerating any such breaking of rules, under the banner that this "how stuff works" in certain wikispace will only erode the equality with which the rules be applied. The people within certain so called wikispaces should be treated no differently than any other wikipedian, no matter how harsh it may seem for the good of the community as a whole. Being an outsider who got to know some members of the Tamils editing here, I can tell these are just a group of unorganized individuals interested in editing a subject area closer to their background. I certainly haven't witnessed any "camps". Its also easy for outsiders to think there are simply two binary sides, but its more nuanced that and I wish everyone else makes effort to understand that. Whats more, the main user account in question regarding this supposed password sharing case claims (though I am not sure his account was hacked ?). Now surely anyone must very very careful to discern the facts from the clutter of rumours, innuendo and slander from parties that may have a motive on getting innocent wikipedians blocked as payback. That angle must be explored atleast as vigorously as an angle that assumes good faith on the part those accepted to be sockpuppets and reviewed by 9 or so admins. Sinhala freedom 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Faysaal, you are missing something. User:Rajkumar Kanagasingam denied the diff was not posted by him here. You should first use checkuser from which IP that posting came with other. If the IPs differ from the IPs of Netmonger/Lahiru_k, go ahead with your other plans.Laeber 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of your assessment, I'm willing to unblock. This is getting ridiculous though. The above sockpuppet is indicative of how ridiculous this whole mess is. --Haemo 05:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding brutal: Even if they are not socks, keep them blocked, and block the rest of both their opponents and their friends too. At this point I no longer care what reason they are formally blocked for. They've caused so much disruption with carrying their ethnic warfare into this project we really ought to get rid of the whole gang. These overenthusiastic schoolboys shouldn't be the people who get to write our coverage of sensitive political topics like this. If they are unblocked now, it will only mean more work for the Arbcom case that's sure to come if we don't act now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok.. easy now. Your suggestion to keep them blocked "..even if they're not socks.." is preposterous. They're volunteering their time here too. Respect that. Serious editors from small countries with small populations arent exactly a dime a dozen. It is not these editors' faults that the articles they edits are inherently contentious. All said and done, they should be appreciated for their perseverance. These are no mickey mouse articles and editing articles like these(and these are very important articles) isnt a joke. Frayed tempers are understandable, if not justifiable. They're human, after all. There's no kind way of putting it, but just stop trying to throw your weight around (yes, seriously. that is how it appears to normal non-admin editors). I've seen an admin repeatedly cussing and swearing on an arbcom, in the presence of a dozen other admins. And I dont remember that he was ever blocked for that. How many of you were standing by and watching the defecations on Essjay's page? Why was the Essjay mess allowed to spill all over wikipedia? How many did you block for disruption? Or was it because many of those puking all over that page were admins? Do the rules work differently for admins? Sarvagnya 06:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make an indefinite block for disruption, that's a separate issue. Based on what I've heard, I might support it.--chaser - t 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to unblock these two accounts because we never got a satisfactory response to the checkuser; Lahiru k and Netmonger indicated they were editing from different institutions, which makes me suspicious of this shared computer lab theory. That said, behavioral evidence, or the lack thereof, is perhaps even more powerful. I saw some similarities, but not enough to block independent of checkuser. I strongly reject the idea of people sharing accounts in this area. Policy seems against and letting people do that makes confirming sockpuppetry by behavior impossible. Confirmed checkuser - "We use the same computer lab." - Behavioral similarities - "We trade accounts." That's a nightmare.--chaser - t 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not fair unblocking these account just because people come and complain about the block. What is the point of having rules in wikipedia if you are not willing to follow it. It does not matter as the bottom line is that they are proved to be socks. As said before just because the evidence that they are socks out weight the ones that prove they are innocent. If they are unblocked, then you guys are in fact encouraging other SL editers and other editors in general to use socks. This is not following rules. If these accounts are unblocked, then you must unblock Elalan also. Faysaif, you can hide behind the fact that someone else blocked Elalan, however, the rules are clear. If you let one side violate sock you should also let the other side violate sock. Elalan's account was shut down for the very reason as here-abusing socks. There is no proof that clearly connect anyone else of sock or meat. IF this was confirmed, then go ahead and hand out blocks appropriately. If you have no proof then you should keep this block as a reminder that sock is not the answer. If this block is undone others who have been blocked for sock in all of wikipedia should also be unblocked. This is bottom line. If this is not done I am sure others can easy get an IP that is AP and then I am sure there will be more edit wars in wikipedia. Watchdogb 10:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am responding here to some of the comments made above:

Sinhala said ...The people within certain so called wikispaces should be treated no differently than any other wikipedian, no matter how harsh it may seem for the good of the community as a whole. Yes, this is what we are trying to do or in fact doing already. Some other admins are facing the same degree of resistance from other wikispaces but that will not last forever. I've dealt w/ the Estonia/Soviet/Russia nightmare before (see ArbCom case) and i'd assure you that what i said (back on July) to the now 1 year banned editors turned out to be right and true. So, yes we deal w/ all wikispaces w/ the same strict way. Same as the admins dealing w/ your cases.
Laeber, and yet you come sockpuppeting. However, i'll still answer you for the sake of clarity. I just don't buy that. I can't trust neither the allegation nor the denial.
Fut. Perf, schoolboys shouldn't be the people who get to write our coverage of sensitive political topics like this. They can do if they are very good students. I don't know about them but the revert war and personal attacks damages Wikipedia. We don't want this place to become the main internet forum for debating and clashing over SL/LTTE issues. WP:BATTLE. We have no more other clear policy other than that. That part of the policy is very explicit and reflects well this issue. I agree w/ you that unblocking them would not a good solution to this mess. Probably, we can just forward this issue to the ArbCom now before it gets more complicated. ~~Not sure yet~~.
Sarvagnya said Your suggestion to keep them blocked "..even if they're not socks.." is preposterous. Please refer to the below and the above notes.
Watchdogb said If this block is undone others who have been blocked for sock in all of wikipedia should also be unblocked. I am not sure if i have to agree w/ you. Every case has its own circumstances. This one got the Alloc. Port. story involved and the schools editing. Refer to the ArbCom case i mentioned above and see a similar case of yours. I'd probably support now the idea to pass this mess to the ArbCom. There you'll explain in much more detail your view because here we don't have enough time. We won't spend 2 or 3 months here. You'll not be satisfied. They won't as well. The sock is not the problem. The real problem is your polarized political positions. Even if there were only 1 editor from each side here, we'd be having a wiki conflict though in a smaller scale. So why not deal w/ the mess at once? ArbCom anyone?
chaser said That's a nightmare. True and i believe that is a good reason to get the ArbCom involved. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Send to Arbcom now

Let's just send this to Arbcom now, because that's where this is headed if they can't learn to get along, a la this case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There really is no pressing need to send to arbcom after the storm has passed. Admins have anyway painstakingly sorted it out. Two of the three investigating admins have, after much deliberation expressed a willingness to unblock. What new evidence will the arbcom get if this was taken to arbcom? Arbcom will deliberate over the same mangled and confusing evidence and come to the same conclusions that the admins have come to here. The issue boils down to this - even though there is no sockpuppetry, there is plenty of violation of WP:BATTLE. That is hardly something that the admins cannot handle themselves. Sending it to arbcom is unnecessary red tape. Also, I am not sure sensitive evidence like passport details etc., should be passed around indiscretely among arbcom members (which is what it will boil down to, if takent to arbcom since every arbcom jury member will want to be personally convinced). Also, an arbcom can have a chilling effect on all involved and will seriously disrupt editing. Many of the parties may never come back - this is the story of almost every arbcom. I am sure all involved here(both sides) have been jolted by this CU and ANI case and will be much better behaved in future. Isnt that what we want, anyway? Admins can issue a stern warning to all involved parties and let this go. Like Fayssal said, we're dealing with normal people, not criminals; this is wikipedia, not real life. Sarvagnya 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? "even though there is no sockpuppetry" You need to read the whole SSP and RFCU cases. Arbcom or community bans are exactly what is needed as this mess has been going on for a long, long, time with no sign of stopping. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've painstakingly read all the CUs and SSPs. In addition, I've followed this mess closely in the past and continue to do so. I am familiar with all these users' editing patterns and behavioural traits. I am familiar with the subject(the SL conflict) also. And putting all this together, I can say that there is no sockpuppetry. Also arbcoms are needed only when there is reason to think that arbcom action will improve the situation, not because something has "been going on for a long time". In this case, I dont see an arbcom achieving anything other than wasting hundreds of man-hours. If these users wont listen to admins on ANI, why do you think they would on arbcom? otoh if they will listen to admins, you can jolly well warn them here (or perhaps on the Srilanka wikiproject talk page). And all the inappropriate behaviour you see in these SL pages is sadly, par for the course. The only way to fix it is to line up all members of both sides' and serve them equally stern warnings. Just singling out the two hapless users who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time will only worsen things and pave the way for more accusations of bias. Anybody who knows the history of articles will vouch for the fact that socking, meating and password sharing is rife from canadian ips. Anybody can put two and two together, even if there is no smoking gun. Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sarvagnya. No need for Arbcom since two admins concur on unblock.Dineshkannambadi 17:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The unblock is a mistake too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The case already went to Arbcom in the Mystìc (talk · contribs) case and was declined and the case has got only more complicated and hence any unblock now should be done only them.Netmonger admits he is user Mystic and Arsath and created the Netmonger account a day after he was blocked and when his case was in arbcom which a user is not allowed to create a account to and edit after he is blocked and his case is in Arbcom.Arasth ArbcomHence was the suggestion to take it to Arbcom.Further earlier he was unblocked on AGF later it was found out that he lied and the email from sent which it was sent was his[.[4].A user account Elalan was blocked with much less evidence.Further if anyone is doing on the otherside he should also be blocked .Already we are seeing high number of edit war and page protections it will go up if any unblock is now done is now done .As per Rlevse an unblock now is bigger mistake.Let it be cleared fully once and for all either in a block or unblock in arbcomPharaoh of the Wizards 17:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sending it to the ArbCom is not WP:BURO. There arbitrators deal w/ the whole picture and not this tiny tip of the iceberg (sockpuppetry). You acknowledge that there is plenty of violation of WP:BATTLE. Until when we have to wait for those "plenty violations" to become none? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting pretty confused by this. The Checkuser result that Lahiru k = Mystic was thoroughly examined at the time (including in the ArbCom request that Pharaoh linked to above); I'm not really sure why we're questioning it now. I don't support unblocking anyone, and I only support sending this to ArbCom if it's to sort out all the user conduct issues in the Sri Lanka/LTTE disputes. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that Snowolfd4 and Lahiru k were saying the same things about Dynamic IPs in the ArbCom request that Snowolfd4 has been saying in this thread; no one found their objections convincing at that time, and I don't see any reason why they should be found convincing now. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep out of this conversation so that neutral people can take action on this but I have been forced to make a couple of points. I have a lot of faith in User:FayssalF and I don’t doubt for a second doubt his intentions are here to clear up a mess and undo alleged injustice if it was an injustice. But we need to keep a couple of points clear here.

First his characterization of me as pro-Tamil editor. The insinuation being that I am a supporter of a Terrorist group and to make it clear for every one I do not support not even .001% the terrorist methods used by this internationally banned terrorist group. My interest in Sri Lanka is related to Human Rights violations only. But as my user page indicates my interest range from South Africa, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Subaltern issues. So that characterization has to be withdrawn unless substantiated.
Second we should stick to on wiki evidence for any decisions we make. Once we open ourselves for off wiki evidence then this becomes a court of law and we really do need an open system so that all of us can see the evidence.
Third this is a good case to be heard by an arbitration committee even if that institution is broken because the issues are that complex It is not just WP:SOCK but also WP:STALK, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA . All these may have been potentially violated.Taprobanus 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, what do we have here? The ring leader of the "pro-Tamil" side of the fence pontificating as if he has nothing to do with this mess?! Sarvagnya 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

May I add that your account is part and parcel of this mess too (part of dirty dozen as refered by an admin here), any community sanction should and will include you especially with respect WP:TROLL, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. That will be the day and thanks for involving yourself in Sri Lanka conflict related issues. Taprobanus 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This support my explanations above. People are editing from the same place (schools, internet clubs, etc...). Call it sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or whatever you like. The bottom line is that all this mess is disrupting the Wikipedia smooth process. Everybody says he is right (blocked, unblocked). I made a synthesis which i believe is correct but was refuted partially by both sides. It is clearly the right time to pass it to the ArbCom, otherwise we'd be back here after 2 weeks arguing about the same (disruption, edit warring, personal attacks, etc)... Netmonger/Lahiru/Kaushini will be unblocked in order for them to participate at the ArbCom case along with every involved party in this mess. I am really fed up of admins being accused of bias when it is clear we hear both sides stories and act accordingly. Toprabanus has just requested to be identified as a pro-Tamil instead of pro-LTTE. I had to explain everything. Yes. I had to to explain to him that i accept his request and reiterate my denominations above as it doesn't matter to me. Anyway, seriously, you'll never end. Time for real and clear measures to be taken. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that my comment above was referring to FayssalF's assessment of the situation here — not my personal assessment of the evidence. I've, apparently, totally lost the thread of what's going on in this situation — apparently there are photographs, and stuff, involved? In any case, I'm going to defer to their opinion here, in whatever they decide, since this has gotten way, way too complicated. I personally haven't seen any evidence here that would cause me to override my block, but the situation appears to be much more complicated than I could have ever anticipated when I first looked at it.

In my opinion, it would be nice if we could avoid ArbCom, since it is slightly defective, and backlogged, and just eke out some behavioral restrictions from some of the editors here. It's clear that they've been engaging in some behavior which is at best dubious, and at worst, violates our user policies. The goal would be that the disruption ends — if we could do that without ArbCom, all the better. --Haemo 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How ? or what do you suggest instead ? My suggestion, How about probation such as 1 RR, come clean with other socks (there are other socks that I know of that some of the accuse have), stop violating WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, you just have to look at Nertmongers user page where he is accusing everyone of bad faith under a seperate section. All this has to stop but how do you enforce without an Arbcomm ??Taprobanus 19:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, people agree to it, and then we block those that violate it. --Haemo 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK then let's start proposing, you admins are the neutral guys here why dont you start with the list of offenders ? and proposals ? Thanks Taprobanus 20:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I have noticed things are quieter on the pages themselves after the indef block of the three accounts. Nevertheless, what about something a little harsher, 1RR over all articles, pre-discussion and consensus before addition of anything new to any of the affected pages (the affected pages will be tagged to indicate its under construction or in dispute), zero tolerance on WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT, blatant bad faith from this point forward and keep the existing blocked users blocked with accesses to editing on talk pages turned off all for a period of 3 months. Advocates (from set of users outside of the affected list) be appointed to represent the blocked users if needed. I am willing to justify point by point the reasoning for each of these probation conditions . After good behavior, each affected individual may resume to having full editing rights and appeal for the blocked users may resume. Alternate idea is a forced partition of what articles each groups of editors can edit. Sinhala freedom 19:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

What about the few dissenters who will not agree to an agreement that has significant backing within the community ? Sinhala freedom 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

ONLY IF...I can see the above proposal, which is basically a community ban/self imposed arbcom, working ONLY IF ALL the key players-of which there are at least a dozen, maybe two dozen, agree to all the stipulations and actually follow them. Admins, preferably but not limited to, ones familiar with the background (there are at least four of them) need to agree to key an eye on things. Any violations would need to be dealt with swiftly and per the agreement. Those editors not following the agreement or complaining about legitimate admin actions should be indef blocked and banned from editing Sri Lankan articles. In my humble opinion, this is the only way to avoid arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For potential complaints about admin action, how about affected users have to get an advocate willing to raise the complaint, allowing for a measure of accountability. This will take out any chance of wp:battle occur with an admin being pulled in, but will keep such discussion with proper decorum. My point is that, whether its legitimate or not maybe be a point of dispute. Sinhala freedom 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see that, but the advocate needs to be an admin, I think. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Taprobanus 21:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

On the admin side, there needs to be at least one admin with checkuser privileges,so that activity of users on probation be monitored. Sinhala freedom 21:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That'd be great, but the check users can't even keep up with arbcom, much less RFCU, so I wouldn't get your hopes up. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you guys are going to have to come together here and agree to some kind of behavioral restrictions on these topics to avoid what would probably be a messy ArbCom case. Everyone has got to really behave well for this to work, and you all have to legitimately want to fix this. I would suggest that change begins at home. --Haemo 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Something like:

Any editor working on topics related to Sri Lanka, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for a specified duration. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it.

However, we can't possibly implement something like this if there isn't some broad consensus for it — and I mean that in the broadest possible sense of the term. --Haemo 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am really satisfied w/ these ideas. I agree w/ the concept. I only think it is hard to have an admin w/ the CheckUser tool for logistical reasons. If that is possible then it would be great. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Faysaif, you suggested that we should go to Arbcom-I agree. However, as you claimed earlier, the most powerful tool available to wikipedia says that these accounts are socks and are confirmed socks who are allowed to edit wikipedia. Whatever the case maybe, you also claimed that you were not in position to decide if documents/pictures/other evidence were legit or not. I agree with that. However, what I don't agree with is that the fact that you are willing to unblock repeated violator of Sock (Lahiru). Watchdogb 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb, I believe you innocently missed what we have been talking about here, the focus has been to figure out how to stamp any further disruptions to wikipedia due to ongoing problems we are having. It had been suggested to goto arbcomm, but there is general preference not to go there, but do something short of that will effectively resolve the issues. Hence Taprobanus, Haemo, myself and Rlevse, with FayssalF's support have been suggesting a series of steps that would affect a dozen or so users related to Sri Lanka edits. The idea would imply some sort of voluntarily approved or (imposed ?) editing restriction or pledge. The details are still to be worked out. Anyone please correct my summary of the present status if you deem appropriate. Sinhala freedom 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This means that all this thread means nothing to you. How many times have we explained and re-explained that? Please add yourself to the party which would not support measures proposed above. If you don't like the proposal, fine. There is nothing more to explain after all what have been said (almost 2 weeks now). There is no more place for drama. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would to thank you admins for doing a difficult and Thankless job where you in a lose-lose no matter what you do and how well you handle it.Thank you very much

The first issue is of the use of socks by Lahiru and Netmonger and this was confirmed by Arbcom.If socks were indeed used ,I feel unblocking would led to encouraging sockpupporty.They should be unblocked only if they are found innocent of socks.As like the elanan case future sockpupputery will be justified based on this unblock.

That they were unblocked even through found guilty of using socks after Arbcom held so. I agree with Akhilleus writes

The larger issue with is Sri Lanka-Tamil-Dravidian where the same group of team taggers edit wars leading to a large number of pages being protected etc with a few additions and deletions edit war.The sad fact is it is established users who are doing it and use of socks.Attacking new users as socks without evidence and warning them

This should be dealt separately and if there is any evidence against any other user of using socks that user also should be dealt firmly but no reward for those using socks against particurly against whom evidence exists particurly where edit warring is going as it would set a very bad example.Pharaoh of the Wizards 02:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pharaoh apart from the fact blocks have been handed out and that all this has been done, there is general frustration in here perhaps rightly so that we haven't had an end to disruptions. So the topic now is what voluntary or imposed plans are we considering short of going to arbcomm, for the other editors (not ones blocked) because nobody feels happy about that option. Please read the proposal by Taprobanus, myself, Haemo and Rlevse on this. Sinhala freedom 02:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative measures

It has been proposed that this issue can be resolved the following way:

Something like:

I'd also like to see something incorporated to limit edit warring here, but we'll see what happens. --Haemo 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also the issue of editors who don't agree to the plan. Also, I'm not sure I see what's different with your proposal than standard policy, we can already block people for disruption, edit warring, etc. Please elaborate. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys know who the players are why not name names ? Thansk Taprobanus 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A synthesis of what Haemo has suggested (as in how to apply it to this situation) with what I had suggested (harsh but temporary rules - 3 months or so) might be even better. Although, I think the its very important to deal with a problem of some editors not agreeing to the plan as well. Sinhala freedom 15:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is actually a copy-paste of an ArbCom resolution, with respect to Eastern Europe. It broadens the scope of blocks, etc. However, there is no clear solution to the problem of editors who do not wish to abide by the resolution. We have WikiProject: Sri Lanka resolution, which might be a really good clearinghouse for some kind of community-based solution. Honestly, I don't see why anyone wouldn't agree to these restrictions — they seem totally reasonable. You shouldn't be engaging in any of the listed behaviors, so if you're committed to ending the battle, then just unilaterally committing yourself to them would be an excellent step towards calming the whole situation down. --Haemo 16:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pledge: 1RR over all articles, pre-discussion and consensus before addition of anything new to any of the affected pages (the affected pages will be tagged to indicate its under construction or in dispute), zero tolerance on WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT, blatant bad faith from this point forward. As part of a cooling off campaign, it will be expected though not contingent upon that existing blocked users will remain blocked with accesses to editing on talk pages turned off all for a period of 3 months. Advocates (from set of users outside of the affected list) be appointed to represent the blocked users if needed. After good behavior (for 3 months), each affected individual may resume to having full editing rights and appeal for the blocked users may resume.

Ok, I will voluntarily pledge to upholding this initiative. So on my part as an individual editor I will abide by what is expected of me. Sinhala freedom 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is about you — a personal pledge to good behavior should not be contingent on other users remaining blocked. --Haemo 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes Of course, I have made that explicit in the pledge. I am pledging not just to good behaviour but to the initiative as a whole, with good behaviour side of things being non contingent on other aspects of the initiative. Sinhala freedom 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, good to have you on board :) --Haemo 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That all sounds good; it should be recorded somewhere easily accessible with a list of affected articles and linked to/summarized on the talk pages of the articles and perhaps in HTML comments on the articles themselves. Mr.Z-man 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Note copied from Netmonger talk page

I am of the opinion, all Sri Lanka conflict related articles should be frozen for few months, to calm things down, I have done very little contribution to the Sri Lanka conflict related articles, majority of my edits have been to Islam related articles and the Colombo article. Out of the 1338 edits of mine only 70 have been related to Sri Lankan conflict related articles, check it out. This of course discounting the edits I did for the Template:Sri Lankan Conflict, which is another 31 edits 99% of this 31 are edits done during the original design of the template. Now admins you decide how disruptive my edits have been.

From this i understand that Netmonger would have no problem to abide by the new rules. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Email confirmation from Lahiru k

And now Lahiru agrees w/ the terms via email. Rlevse is preparing a list of users who we think we need onboard the SR list. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final resolution

Users who should be covered by the agreement: User:Taprobanus - formerly "Raveen S", User:Lahiru k, ~~User:Kaushini~~, User:Netmonger/Mystic/Arsath, User:Iwazaki, User:Snowolfd4, User:Watchdogb, User:Sinhala freedom, User:Pharaoh of the Wizards, User:Wiki Raja, User:Rajkumar_Kanagasingam, User:Gnanapiti, User:Sarvagnya, User:Supermod, User:Sudharsansn, User:Firewater101 (AKA User:Sharz (see [5]), User:Bodhi dhana, User:Lanka07, and User:Nitraven. I will notify all of these users on their talk page. ( Done)
Once agreement is final and the articles are not protected, I ask User:FayssalF to unblock the blocked ones.
These articles will be ~~protected (admin access only)~~ subject to a 1RR for 3 months from the agreement date for cooling down, then regular editing can recommence: Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka, Sri Lankan Civil War, Tourism in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, as well as articles in these categories and their subcategories: Category:Massacres in Sri Lanka, Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Category:Riots and civil unrest in Sri Lanka, Category:Assassinated Sri Lankan people.
Affected articles will have a template attached describing the situation. ( Template created)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation will be the main point of debating your general points of view such as NPOV and RS. It is the best place for everyone (users and admins when needed) to coordinate efforts for a better collaboration. Articles talk pages are advised to be kept for specific details dealing only w/ the subject on hand.
There will be zero tolerance of violations of WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT and WP:BATTLE. Listed users are subject to 1RR per day (not counting rv standard 3RR exceptions). Violations will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal.
New users and dormant socks/meats that become active are also subject to this agreement.
Users who have been sanctioned may request an admin, not necessarily one listed below, as their advocate.
Admins User:FayssalF, User:Haemo, User:Chaser and User:Rlevse are the ones most familiar with this case and should be primary points of contact. Other admin participation is welcome.

Submitted. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

[edit] Agree

Taprobanus 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sinhala freedom 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Lahiru k (via email)
Netmonger (via talk page and email)
Nitraven 05:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Watchdogb 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Raja 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

[edit] No shows

[edit] Comments

Per Lahiru informing FayssalF, Kaushini will not be editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a boiler template on the affected articles to indicate the situation, particularly unaffected readers and users that these articles are under the privy of a dispute resolution mechanism. Sinhala freedom 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It will be a good idea. You can work on this at the Reconciliation WikiProject starting now because it is time to move forward. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: These articles will be protected (admin access only) for 3 months from the agreement date for cooling down, then regular editing can recommence.

I think the spirit of this statement would be initiate dispute resolution on the pages themselves for the 3 months and something to that effect would be good to have. Sinhala freedom 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to prevent the listed editors from editing the articles in question, the agreement can be a ban instead of protecting the articles. Naturally that is a social construct that may require blocks or protection to enforce. I'm suspicious of the idea of "advocates" for the same reason that the advocates' association disappeared. I for one, don't want to be an advocate for a person in this dispute and then later try to decide what's best for the encyclopedia. Other than these two points, I think the proposal is good, although I'm not hopeful about editors voluntarily embracing it.--chaser - t 18:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. What I envisioned the role of advocates is a means to depersonalize some of the content dispute issues. Some times for two people to be at it, makes the situation worse, although what they maybe talking without the air of emotion maybe fine. Sinhala freedom 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Sarvagnya

1 - Why are we even having this discussion with L and N still blocked? Bypassing arbcom and settling things ourselves like mature adults is/was contingent upon them being unblocked and allowed to partake in these deliberations. It would be farcical to continue these discussions without their participation and input, central as they are, to this issue.

2 - Why the blazes am I on this list?! I am only an occasional editor of these articles and am as uninvolved as an active/semi-active editor of an article can get. My main involvement in these articles has been to get rid of the brazen use of non-RS sources (tamilnation, tamilcanadian, sangam.org, random wordpress blogs and other terrorist mouthpieces, tamilnet etc) that was rife on these articles, particularly from the tamil side of the fence. You dont just put everyone who edited these articles in the past on that list! If that were to be the case, you'd want to put Fayssal, Black Falcon, Jayjg, Blnguyen and a host of others on the list too. All of them have been involved parties in the past. And afaik, Gnanapiti's addition on the list is perhaps as ridiculous as it can get. I am sure he'll have just as much to say.

3 - The main thrust of my involvement in this discussion will be about sources that will be allowed on these articles. Usage of spurious sources is at the very core of this entire mess and it wont go away unless we blacklist some sources. We have to once and for all decide that certain sources are unacceptable. Period. This is a conflict that has been covered widely and in prolific detail by "definitely-RS" and neutral (non-Sri Lankan) sources like BBC, CNN, The Hindu, Indian Express, Reuters etc., for the last three-four decades atleast. No battle, terrorist attack or HR violation worth mention in an encyclopedia has been missed by these sources.

That being the case, and also in the interest of article stability and NPOV, we can most certainly do away with "definitely-non RS", "borderline RS" and such other Questionable sources. Since most of the content on these articles involves 'exceptional claims', we will have to insist that the sources used are also of the very highest quality and of impeccable credentials. Blatantly partisan sources and unabashed mouthpieces of either side will have to be mercilessly blacklisted. Unless this is done, there simply is no point in going through with this exercise. Sarvagnya 23:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

1 - They have been actively participating via emails and their talk pages. They have already agreed to it.

2 - Involved doesn't mean biased. Involved means he knows the area while dealing w/ violations of rules. If this dispute won't end today, you'll be having hundreds of admins involved in a few years span. Plus, since you are only an occasional editor of these articles then i you don't have to worry too much. IOW, why would you need to revert more than once unless it is vandalism?

3 - You still can participate at discussions about RS and POV at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation or any other talk page according to the policies and guidelines. In fact business will remain as usual. The only change are the adapted temporary new rules of the game. You got to smile to each other and work together. There are no other options. All what we have discussed and analyzed were relatively harsh to at least a party or another. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If that were to be the case, you'd want to put Fayssal, Black Falcon, Jayjg, Blnguyen... Personally, i've never been reported to 3RR noticeboard. I've never been templated (except by vandals) for anything. I've never edited Sri Lanka / LTTE articles. So it is pointless. But if you want to include me as well, no problem since admins are not expected to violate policies and disrespect guidelines. When they do, they can get desysoped. Have a look. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Snowolfd4

First up, I don't see the need to protect the Sri Lanka article, where I do not see an edit war going on [6], or the Sri Lankan Civil War article, which has never had any edit warring that I can recall, or 95% of the other mentioned articles. Protecting articles for the sake of protecting them would be rather silly.

Point two. I suggest that if any administrative action is to be taken related to the above proposals, it should be taken by uninvolved administrators, as in those who "have never been involved in a dispute related to a editing Sri Lanka related articles". There are 1400 other Administrators on Wikipedia, none of whom are dumb, so if the need does arise all they have to do is look at the agreed proposals and use their common sense to decide whether any agreements were violated. Fresh eyes could do tons of good.

Three, User:Sudharsansn and User:Firewater101 (i.e. User:Sharz) have to be added to the list of active editors.

Given the fact that everytime an edit war takes place, you have your regular quota of SPA (look half way down the page here), there should be a provision to make sure SPA's aren't used to violate any of the above proposals.

Rolling back vandalism, such as this, should also not be included in any 1RR consideration. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would apply the 3RR exceptions to enforcement of any 1RR limit. I expect other administrators would do the same.--chaser - t 18:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exemptions apply to simple, blatant vandalism. We can compromise on the protections on certain articles that are relatively uncontentious, if there's no danger of edit warring. --Haemo 18:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Chaser and Haemo. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

me too. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4, (re blocks performed by uninvolved admins)... Suppose all the 4 admins present here can be considered involved. Do you want these admins go call another admin to take action when someone violates the terms of the rules we are discussing here? Or is there any specific admins among these 4 whom you consider uninvolved so he can take care of that? Please explain your point or give us an idea how you'd see it work? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, given everything I've seen from you since early this year, I'd find it hard to trust your neutrality in these disputes. So I will not agree to a proposal that lets you deal with these issues "swiftly and harsher than normal".

So how should it be patrolled? Of the 9 proposals only 2 require direct admin action.

1RR violations and
WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, SOCKS, MEAT and WP:BATTLE violations"

For 1RR I see two options. We already have WP:AN3, and any violations could be reported there linking to this proposal saying the user agreed not to violate 1RR. Or any violation could be reported at ANI, with the stipulation that an uninvolved admin take the required action.

The second one is easy. When any of those policies are broken, users are expected to report it at ANI. The only difference in this case would be that whoever files the complaint points to this proposal and says the violater agreed not to edit war. Anyone watching ANI can then take action, bar any of the stipulated admins. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are not going to agree, what is there to pontificate about those who agree ? IRR will be applied to all Sri Lanka conflict related articles whether people agree or not, User XYX agrees and USER ABC doesn’t, do you think ABC will be given the leeway to merrily go around and revert up to 3 times in Sri Lanka related articles ? If that is the reality of this agreement then the whole Wikipedia community is bordering on stupidity to allow the egregious violators of 1RR, WP:SOCK, WP:NPA, WP:STALK and WP:CIVIL a free hand to violate all rules all the times while restricting those who play by the rules even more. These violators are creating a bad name for Wikipedia and disrupting the entire community and is been duly noted. This is the second time you have opted out of a reconciliation effort. Thanks Taprobanus 13:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Snowolfd4. I have no interest in your disputes and i am planning to go away anyway since my patrolling would be biased according to you. I've already stated this below. Right? Remember ABUSO/BIAZU? You toolk too long to follow my suggestion. But still you took it. For the rest, since you are all the time busy warring at your preferred subjects and rarely follow what's going on at the AN/I and still arguing and trying to be an obstacle to this solution then i advise you to go explain your resistance at the AN. Before that you have to explain to them "why are you against making Wikipedia a better place". You may have to convince them that blocking edit warriors w/o even breaking the 3RR is wrong, etc... Good luck.

P.S. It is not that i 'am biased' otherwise Lahiru k and Netmonger would have never had the opportunity to get back editing. It is simply your behavior which is problematic. Good luck w/ the rest of admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF, we all signed up to this as a project, you were part of it (at least that was my understanding). If you are leaving it at its most important time frame (i.e execution and maintenance), how can we continue ? that too based on someone who is not party to this agreement to begin with. How about the 8 who thought you are party to this. Please clarify. Thanks Taprobanus 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

how can we continue ? --> respect the resolution. How about the 8 who thought you are party to this --> Respect the resolution. Keep faith on the 3 or 4 admins available. At least they are trusted by all parties. They all agree and have been participating in this resolution so i don't see why the absence of one would be unhelpful. No excuse. This should move on and i'd not be the one who stops this from moving. Quite the opposite. This is how i see it. It is for the best of everyone. If one day this would go to the ArbCom, i'd come and say my word (it would be brief enough to be clear to the Committee). If not, i really hope so, i don't see the need for me to stay here. Once the resolution gets into effect, i'll go away. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Watchdogb

I will commit to everything proposed after I can get at least 3 admins who are willing to comment on content disputes. I know I am supposed to try RFC first but tell's me otherwise. Why comment ? Many conflicts, in wikipedia, can be fixed by a third opinion/comment. Why admins ? No one would know the rules better than them. Is this a bargain ? No, I really do want to commit. However, I am a bit concerned. I would much rather have people to go to before I commit than to have to beg people after and be turned down like an insignificant editor. Watchdogb 18:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried Third opinion Taprobanus 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Have you forgotten how that turned out at Chemmani ? Poor guy got attacked and his "third opion" was ripped to shreds. Watchdogb 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchdogb if anyone falling under the proposals "attacks", then that person will be dealt with where it says "Violations will be dealt with swiftly and harsher than normal." Shouldn't that satisfy your concern ? Sinhala freedom 18:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sinhala_Freedom, remember that personal attacks will not get people blocked. Remember what happened to Lexicon after he repeatedly warned a user not to violate WP:NPA and blocked for violating the rules continuously ? Watchdogb 19:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As Haemo had mentioned and which I concurred, the personal behaviour clause shouldn't be contingent on what happens to someone else. Sinhala freedom 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to make generic comments about situations, but no generic admin is going to be able to make a precise comment on a given content dispute — I simply don't know enough about Sri Lanka (read: nothing) to give any specific guidance. So, I don't know how effective your proposal is going to be. We have RfC and third opinion because it attracts editors who know about the subject — most of the admins on Wikipedia don't. --Haemo 18:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I only need comment on situations. As comments/help like this and something like this admin has done done on the whole page. All you need in these situations is an opinion which speaks with rules in mind. None of these dispute really relate to the situation in Sri Lanka. It is pointing at rules and saying what is proper and what is not. Really, this revert ... (1) per Wikipedia:Avoid self references ("it should be noted"); (2) per WP:NPOV (piping the link to "LTTE" to List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE) is the type of comment we need. Watchdogb 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll commment on edit disputes to the best of my ability. Also, everyone needs to keep in mind what is and isn't vandalism. Not agreeing with an edit, especially if it has a valid ref, does not make it vandalism. For example, if edit Abc has a good ref like the London Times, but User:Xyz disagrees with it, that is not vandalism. Vandalism is things like inserting profanity, blanking a page, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse, this is exactly the type of comments I was asking for. For example, if user A says that Citation from HRW is not to be used in HR related article, then a someone should be able to say Of course HRW can be used because it is RS. These are strictly keeping up the rules. Thanks again for your work in trying to get things cooled down.Watchdogb 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Just like we have admins here trying resolve this problem by bold action we have had other admins who have taken bold action to resolve conflicts in articles by editing them. I have to agree that following admins namely User:Black Falcon,User:Jayjg and User:DESiegel have made our life that much easier by explaining the rules properly and kept the editors from escalating when some were continually harangued. I think this is what Watchdog is asking for. May be we need another group of admins who know the subject matter and who can comment on issues. Black Falcon has been doing this for a looooong time. Time to bring him in. Thanks Taprobanus 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've invited Black Falcon to join if he likes — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree Black Falcon would be invaluable in this initiative. Sinhala freedom 21:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I am done with this thread for now. Since 2 admins have agreed to help on comment I will add my name to the thing (Unofficially until I sleep on it). As a thanks for User:FayssalF,User:Rlevse, User:Haemo and others who are helping with this, I am going to abide to the above conditions starting now. Please let me know what the final decisions are so that I can follow that to the fullest. Now if you will excuse me I am going to try to get my dead relatives some Peace in their after lives. Starting with those who were massacred at Kalmunai. Watchdogb 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templatey goodness

This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.

Looks good? This is for the talk page of the articles — we usually don't put warnings like that on the main article. --Haemo 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the template. However, I think an article reader should be informed that the article itself is under dispute or dispute resolution. Thats just to allow the reader to make an informed decision as to the article contents. Sinhala freedom 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it to, we'll only need to fix the link once finalized. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, for sure — I just put some dummy text in there for now. Sinhala, I agree with what you say, but it's not what's usually done in these situations — witness the ArbCom decision with respect to Eastern Europe. Most of the articles already have a "this article is the subject of a dispute" tag on them; that should suffice, but maybe we can make a special one? --Haemo 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"but maybe we can make a special one" that would be great, yes precisely. Sinhala freedom 19:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, following a dispute resolution consensus.
Please see the discussion, and details on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the restrictions have been removed.

Like this? --Haemo 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like it. Sinhala freedom 19:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

THey say the same basic thing, no big deal to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

i like the colors. However, the wording of the first template is more helpful for visitors/readers. But well, it is not a big deal i suppose. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Like it Taprobanus 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that the first one would go on the talk page, and the second on the page itself, during the protection period especially. --Haemo 19:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks really good.Watchdogb 13:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking Lahiru k and Netmonger

Guys. I see no reason why keep Lahiru k and Netmonger blocked. They have already accepted the proposal and surely would bring new ideas to this discussion. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So what is this Once agreement is final and the articles are not protected, I ask User:FayssalF to unblock the blocked ones. Taprobanus 22:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what happened ? Faysaif, please give me a straight answer- Why unblock a sock puppet violator ? if not, then where is the consensus/proof that he is not a sock ? Watchdogb 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Would I be correct to say that all of us were just gamed from this proposal? Watchdogb 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(2 ec) I am sorry that i forgot about that. It's my mistake. If you want me to re-block them i'll do. If you believe that they can add something positive we can still move forward. No big deals. Again, i apologize. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

They abused sock. Sweet and simple. If you want to unblock, then fine. However, go ahead and block User:Elalan also will ya ? I think this way we can all have a ED the Sock party. Watchdogb 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

But at the sake of being fair we should also unblock the rest of Sock abusers in wikipedia. That is waht I want Watchdogb 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think i gave you options... I also apologized. What do you want? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What wikipedia says in it's many rule sets. Sock violators be blocked. That is it Watchdogb 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

We have already discussed that and everything surrounding it. So whether you have forgotten that as i did w/ the unblock now or you want to get to point 0. I'd assume good faith and believe you really forgot. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

So please tell me. Do you want me to keep them blocked until we finish or not? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been only eating vegetable for the last 2 weeks, so my memory is a little low :). Anyways, I want them blocked until we are finished. Watchdogb 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fayssal, good call we are onto something big here, potential ceasfire and complete peace without an arbcom, may be it will pan out or not.(I dont know) The intention is to have an agreemnent that all parties agree to and the dirty dozen put on probabtion for the first three months and potentially for the rest of the lives in wikipedia. Without that agreement, this is going to arbcom and like Fut. Per. said perm block for more than two editors, editors who have violated WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:STALK again and again.Taprobanus 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree for there to be peace there needs to be sacrifices expected from everybody. There is a real confidence and willingness to participate and be part of the process from a wide section of editors. The fact that the blocked editors have accepted the proposals gives much hope. No one has chosen to oppose the proposal yet. While there might be unfortunate events that may temporarily disrupt out attention, we need to quell such situations quickly, be disciplined, stay the course and no turning back! Sinhala freedom 04:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Either one, Lahiru and Netmonger are sockpuppets and should be indefinitely blocked, or they are not, and should be unblocked immediately. When the blocking admin says that he no longer thinks they are sockpuppets and unblocks them, that should be it. This editing agreement has nothing to do with the sock case.

So FayssalF, as the blocking admin I request you unblock them immediately, before it this gets escalated any further. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please read the thread below/above/left/right. It seems that you are the only one disagreeing all the time everywhere. This is inappropriate as is the word "escalate". We don't escalate here and you know why. If you are here to disagree, please sign at the appropriate place above so you'd get a special treatment. Naturally, you may be exempt of any clause of this mediation resolution. Keep in mind that i was not the admin who stipulated the proposal. Many people worked on that. You even assisted late. All people are working on it and have been explicitly asked to participate. Same as you. Simple as that. I had to respect discussions here before i unblock. I made a mistake (it could be based on good faith trying to more forward) and apologized. Surely i am not going to apologize to anyone for wasting my time w/ these endless disputes. There are so many users out there who may need help. This is not a police station, not a tribunal, not a hospital, not a parliament and definitely not a school. You wanna be patient and sort this out or you wanna cry loud and delay the process. We told you more than enough that blocked guys would get back here. We have been almost finished w/ it until you came disputing something which is almost 90% ready. Isn't it making a point and disruption? So what do you want? Escalate it? It's up to you, you know how it works in Wikipedia and i really suggest you remain calm and patient. We've heard enough of disputes.

Now. A last question i have for you. Why you and me are disagreeing most of the time? It can be that i may be biased against you? Why? Everyone trusted my investigation even w/ caution in some cases but they have assumed good faith. Even those who have been skeptical have joined the good faith dispute resolution. Remember that this is the ANI. DR is just next door. Go try it. If not go try ArbCom and while waiting for ArbCom rulings continue edit warring, PA, etc... Endless claims, endless noise. Lame disputes and stubborness. By the way, Lahiru k and Netmonger/Arsath have agreed and they will be unblocked and they are happy w/ it. So why not why not contribute positively? If you don't want to go knock the doors of the ArbCom yourselves while signing above as "been here but disagreed". We'll go then w/ the dispute resolution while you look at us. Do you see it otherwise?

I wrote too much!!! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admins?

Guys, just a serious and important point. Well, since we have been discussing about admin involvement of (X, Y, Z admin) i now would think that no one among the past and some of the admins present could be uninvolved (whatever you name it). There are more than a thousand out there. Yes, true. The problem is that only four (out of that huge number) could voluntarily accept dealing w/ this. But would you really accept an instant block w/o asking the same or another admin to block the other one for violating policy last week? There's always a party which may feel abused in any conflict. Normal. Everybody feels he's right and the other is totally wrong. This is the behaviour that admins cannot deal w/ because nobody would ever succeed. Indeed, everybody knows that the ANI is not the complaint dept.

It is not a school either. This is a serious project. I don't see how and why admins would edit disputed articles. First, they may have limited knowledge about the subject. In case there’s a knowledgeble admin there would always be oppositions because not everybody would be happy w/ the middle ground or admins views (supposing it would be). In case there would be no opposition and the admin succeed to convince (after explaining, explaining and some more explaining) both sides of what he meant by that edit then bravo. Don't you notice that in this case it would be the admin(s) who is/are the editor and the should-have-been editors just sitting at their seats protesting as if it were at the parliament? Wikipedia is no democracy. No parliament. No politics.

Otherwise, let admins edit the articles so you can relax and try your rights to vanish. Explain to eachother why you are right but no name calling, no sockpuppetry, etc... In brief, no wrong things. I assume you believe you do correct things. For that admins are here. Admins task is limited to monitor behavior. Nothing else. If this consensus can't be reached, make sure that no one can do anything to fix it unless you do it yourselves.

So please get this stuff moving forward or else you can just markup a comment and say "i agree about everything except having ABUSU/BIASO admin X dealing w/ this war". Then you can go get one or two new admins or keep only 2, 1 or 0 admin. Do whatever you want. Remember that at the ArbCom no one choses his arbitrator and that's cool. No politics but too much BURO (sounds big). Why not try something you are familiar with [WP:SLR]? I am sure it is the best possible option for now. Don't clutter article talk pages w/ empty rounds of discussions. Concentrate your efforts on the main conference room.

At the end, before thinking if an admin is biased/invloved/uninvolved think first about yourselves. Are you biased? Are you involved sometimes as some say above.

Remember, admins are volunteers. They have no one to report to except to the Wikipedia community. They work for the best of Wikipedia. We do understand and respect the feelings of all editors who are witnessing sorrow on both sides but we do not agree with having Wikipedia a place for exposing (everyone their way) those feelings in inappropriate ways. That was all in a nutshell. This is what we have to offer. You know it all. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so that you understand the emotional status of some of the people here. Some editors seem not to have made the move from subjects of the queen to a citizen of a country. There is an apt saying back home. A dog will not listen to a fellow dog but to a tagged dog. You see, when the tagged dog says jump, some of us say how high Sir ? Taprobanus 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to talk about reasonable people and not dogs as it often carry negative connotations. Still, an experienced Wikipedia user should know how high they can reach. That is written in the books. When you make noise, you'll get someone asking you to shut up and that someone would not necesseraly be a policeman. It is not about the status but about responsability. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Always the optimist

. May you succeed always Taprobanus 13:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

Can we amend the agreement to say that only those who agree to these condition can edit these articles ? That would be keeping in line with what Future Perfect wanted, that is there should be community sanction for editing Sri Lanka related articles. By amending this agreement to say that ONLY those who agree toit can edit SL conflict related articles we get the same affect but nuanced ? any opinions. Thanks Taprobanus 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's really going to work. This needs to be largely voluntary in order to succeed. --Haemo 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We seek preventive methods and not punitive methods. Indeed, anyone can edit. In this spirit, the rules should apply to all the same way. It is a pity to see people not wanting to reconciliate. If they don't and that doesn't really matter, they should respect the opinion of the rest to reconciliate. Any resistance (like disrupting the reconciliation process or violating the 1RR would be dealt w/ firmly). The blocked accounts cannot wait further because others refused to participate at this resolution. The outcome of this resolution will later appear at the main ANI so every wikipedian will be aware of it. If anyone else has any other opinion they should not hesitate to discuss it since we won't stay here forever. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So in effect what you are saying is, even if people dont agree to this agreement, Admins will treat them with the same measure as those of us who have agreed to it ? Because that is important. Thanks Taprobanus 18:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to go forward with this solution without a clear approval by most of the users here, we're going to need some strong backing by the rest of the admins here. I'm frankly dejected that quite a few users have just abandoned this process totally, with very little, or no, input. --Haemo 19:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I of course agree. I'm posting a report there after this but i see that the resoultion still talks about protection instead of a 1RR restriction! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be both, the protection template and things like No PA, follow civility and 1RRTaprobanus 21:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection means 0RR which doesn't make sense. 1RR is the standard at the AN. We don't want to kill the spirit of editing. It is not reasonable to go from 0RR to 3RR. 3 months of 1RR restriction is suitable. In case of troubles like vandalism any admin can semi-protect or protect depending on the situation. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone guys for all your efforts. I've just posted the report at the AN. You can find it here. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's see what input we get there. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's the list of participants

Users who should be covered by the agreement. Check-marks indicate acceptance, question marks indicate a no-show, hourglasses indicate inactive, and crosses indicate rejection:

User:Rajkumar_Kanagasingam
User:Supermod
User:Firewater101 (AKA User:Sharz (see [7])

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.