User talk:SebastianHelm/Conflict resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Expert editors for a content dispute in history 2 Biased Source Template 3 Re: Armenian nationalism proposed resolution 4 President of the Executive Yuan 5 Was denkst du? 6 E-mail 7 Your advice 8 Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration 8.1 Jan 21 9 Help with mediation case? 10 answer 11 Working Group login 12 My user name 13 WG experiment

[edit] Expert editors for a content dispute in history

Hi, Since you are on the mediation cabal, I thought I'd ask for your opinion. I need some help on what to do next in a content dispute on the Talk:India page, where a recent RfC was concluded between two disputants, user:Rueben lys and I (user:Fowler&fowler). The dispute was about whether certain topics (in the history of the Indian independence movement) were notable for inclusion in the highly compressed history section in the FA India. The history section there has been fairly stable for over a year now, and has exactly two sentences devoted to the Indian independence movement. There is some sympathy for expanding the history section, which perhaps would allow another two to four sentences for the Indian independence movement (i.e. a total of four to six sentences). The dispute is about what other topics merit inclusion in this slightly expanded sub-section. (The statements in the RfC were both long, so you might want to skim through them first.) Here is my statement in the RfC: Statement by Fowler&fowler]] and here is Rueben lys's Statement. The RfC resulted in seven comments (not including those by user:Rueben lys himself); of these, five (see: Comment by Doldrums, Comments by John Kenney, Comments by Abecedare, Comments by Sundar, Comments by Hornplease) were supportive of my position, and two (See: Comment by Sarvagnya, and Comments by Lara bran) that were supportive of user:Rueben lys's position. user:Rueben lys now says that while I have made the case that his topics (for inclusion in the history section) do not get coverage in reliable sources, I have yet to show that they are not regarded to be notable by my sources. I am at the point in this entire process, where I'm fast losing patience and where I feel that I have made an effort to be both clear and logical; in contrast I feel user:Rueben lys has been unfocused (see his long string of comments with eight sub-sections here) and difficult to pin down. I suggested to user:Rueben lys that we consider a second RfC on WikiProject History where, hopefully, some expert editors will be able to weigh in on the evidence. Although he agreed at first, he now says that he would prefer to have the RfC on WikiProject India. Since the first RfC had already been advertised on WikiProject India, I don't see how a second one there will help.

Could you please help me with some guidelines? Wikipedia has to have some expert editors in History. How can I find them? And how and where do I have an RfC in order that the experts can weigh in; otherwise, I see a Featured Article – India – becoming the object of highly idiosyncratic edits, well-meaning though they might be. If you think an RfC is not a good idea, could you suggest some other options. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a well written and well referenced message, but I'm afraid it's in the wrong place. Since you turned to all the MedCab coordinators, you may want to open a mediation case; we coordinators can help you with the mechanics of that, but please don't carry the discussion to talk pages of uninvolved users. — Sebastian 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased Source Template

I noticed you were going to start a biased source template. I am not familiar with template-building but I wanted to offer my support and whatever help I can offer. If you're not interested in it anymore (your entry was January 2007) - may I pick your brain? Did you have a framework in mind? I think it would be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia.Typing monkey 02:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

When I wrote this, I didn't have a framework in mind; I only wrote it as a deescalation tool: To give the opponents in an ethnic conflict a chance to clearly make their concerns known without perpetuating an edit war. As such, it is a compromise. I added a recommendation to use it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#How to avoid a revert war, but to be honest, I'm not sure how many people actually are following it. — Sebastian 05:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Armenian nationalism proposed resolution

I'm not sure of the etiquette around mediation, and don't want to stoke any further flames. Therefore, I'm placing this comment on your talk page. You're currently mediating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-30 Armenian nationalism and your suggested resolution is that both parties (Andranikpasha and Dbachmann) "...agree to recuse themselves for an agreed time from editing an agreed set of articles ..."

To me, this approach raises an obvious problem. There appears to be no shortage of Wikipedia users (registered and anonymous) who are keen to add strongly POV content to articles that excite them. In doing this the well-known policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE are often largely ignored. This is true just as much for Turkish nationalist editors as for Armenian nationalist editors. But two sets of competing nationalist edits don't make for good articles. Andranikpasha has a substantial history of valuable contributions to articles on Armenian history, but some of his recent edits to Turkish geography articles have been clearly POV.

In contrast, there are very few editors who have the knowledge and time to spend reverting or editing this POV content. In my view, Dbachmann appears to fall into this second camp. He may not be a fan of nationalism, but his edits appear responsible and justifiable.

As a case in point, take a look at the adding of the History of Armenia template tag to a whole slew of articles about places in eastern Turkey. Undoubtedly, Armenians and their history are intimately involved in the history of these places. However, Andranikpasha has uncritically placed this 10-inch long history navigation box right at the start of many of these articles. In response, Dbachmann has moved the box to the History section of such articles as Van, Turkey. There has then followed a persistent reversion campaign by Andranikpasha and unregistered users.

More responsible Armenian editors, such as Eupator, have removed the History of Armenia template tag from these articles completely, with the logic that "it should only be added to states and historical periods not random topics in accordance to similar templates".

So, I'm concerned that when Andranikpasha doesn't want to play NPOV he can open mediation with Dbachmann and the result may be that there's no-one around to prevent future POV edits. I don't see that excluding both parties from edits is the best way to deal with Andranikpasha's biased edits.

Here's an alternative resolution: Andranikpasha agrees to read (and abide by) a relevant list of core policies. He agrees to provide sources for new content added to (or modified in) controversial articles (and yes, that would include Armenian nationalist edits to Turkish geography articles). He agrees to follow WP:UNDUE, particularly in the addition and placement of navigation boxes. And he agrees not to use the cover of anonymity to engage in any of this POV conduct (something of course, that we don't know for sure he has ever done).

That way Andranikpasha doesn't have to give up editing controversial topics, just follow Wikipedia policies. Rupert Clayton 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The option "to recuse themselves for an agreed time" is actually exactly what Wikipedia:Dispute resolution stipulates in this situation, when talking to the other party did not help: Disengage for a while. That is a policy, a standard that all users should follow. No person, how competent and responsible he or she may be, is exempt from that, and even Jimbo Wales gets harshly criticized when he ocassionally steps over these policies.

That said, you raise a valid point that a big part of the problem seems to be Andranikpasha's unfamiliarity with our policies. I am pushing him to take that seriously. However, I think that Dab, too, could have handled this better, and I hope he's learning from the experience, too. See my last edit to the mediation case for details. — Sebastian 17:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] President of the Executive Yuan

Hi, the government uses President of the Executive Yuan too: [1]. And with 2,410 results, I think it is more common.--Jerry 20:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that. But I remember reading that they use the other form, too. — Sebastian 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and can you please provide a link to the page where I voted? I would have gone there to see if that was addressed already, but I hope you can understand that searching through my contributions is not an efficient way to find it. 對不起，我沒有那麼多空。 — Sebastian 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It's right here: Talk:Premier_of_the_Republic_of_China#Survey.--Jerry 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I replied with a table there. I wish you had done that little research instead of me. — Sebastian 03:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but thanks for creating the table anyways.

I added Premier of Taiwan to one of the options. I think the article should definitely be moved, we just have to decide on the name to move to, but Chris seems to be simply opposing the move without any reason, what is going to happen if he keeps opposing the move?--Jerry 21:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I also support the move to Premier of Taiwan, but Jiang provided a reason to oppose it. Is there any way you could agree upon the move to President of the Executive Yuan?--Jerry 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was denkst du?

I've added a revised proposition. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and congrats on your "promotion" – long and well may you swash the bucket! Mark

[edit] E-mail

Please respond to my e-mails. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent you two e-mails through your user page, but have not received any clear reply. I received a couple of mails that could be from you, but they neither contain your user name nor do they explicitly refer to the case. I need some sign of authenticity. It is my strict policy to not divulge confidential information. To ensure your privacy, I can not confidently reply to mails when I am not absolute sure who the sender is. The easiest way for you to ensure this is by replying directly to one of my mails by just hitting the "Reply" button. — Sebastian 00:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked again and I honestly have not received any other mails that look like they could come from you. — Sebastian 00:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, they landed in the spam folder. I'm reading them right now. — Sebastian 00:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice

Re: Diff, thanks for the edit summary advice. Per your suggestion, I posed the question at WP:NLT. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

Thanks for your kind note. I replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Best wishes, HG | Talk 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, hi again. I have a specific idea about how uninvolved parties might be able to better read disputed situations -- i.e., by helping tell the players apart. However, I'm wondering whether this idea (1) can keep within AGF bounds, or (2) would condone taking sides. Would you mind commenting on what I've drafted? Thanks for your consideration. Pls reply to my Talk. HG | Talk 18:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your invitation! To be honest, your approach is quite different from the approach I favor. For one, I have strong personal objections against labelling people - partly because I come from a country that has done that with perfection; people in my country started by labelling people by their race, and then ended up killing 6 million.

But let's remain in the present. I really would like us to focus on our articles, rather than on our personal differences. I believe this is not only only important for Wikipedia, I also would like to think that - especially for areas like I-P and SL - we can be a model case for good cooperation. I happen to work in a company where Palestinians and Israelis work well together (one Jewish coworker of mine told me a couple years ago that a Palestinian was her best manager), and this fills me with immense gratitude; it is one of the main reasons why I enjoy coming to work here. I would like Wikipedia to be such a place, too. A place where editors feel at home and welcome, and just respected as people, regardless of their ethnicity or other affiliations. A place where editors work together, and only see their problems as enemies. This won't happen all the time, but the more often it happens, the better. It is a long learning curve, even for someone like me, who came here over a year ago with this ideal. Look at how I changed even in the last month: WT:SLR#Clarification of what 1RR means to us.

For all this, my approach with WP:SLR was to make sure members include editors from both sides, and then always let members decide in consensus. This is only possible because we had, right from the start, two members from opposing camps who both were willing to cooperate for the sake of Wikipedia. I would therefore urge you to seek membership of at least one cooperative member for each side who are respected in their camps. — Sebastian 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and personal reply Sebastian. I agree that it'd be good to have members from opposing camps at the start. But I guess I got impatient and started anyway, without members from either camp. As you say, I am concerned that one side will join and another sit out. So, to talk openly about that possibility, I suspect we will need to look at folks in terms of their partisanship. Anyway, I'm inclined to think that if people are going to edit from a POV standpoint, we'll all better off if they're honest about it and it's out in the open. Nevertheless, I do very much try to keep folks focused on articles, policies and editing decisions, w/o getting distracted by inter-personal squabbles, etc. Oh, another point. How would our effort to get folks from both camps be helped or hindered by the ArbCom case underway? (Are you following it?) ArbCom can't force people to contribute to a project; hmm, perhaps ArbCom can ask people either to commit to some principles (e.g., your agreement from the AN/I) or else face a topic ban (or whatever). Would that be constructive? Thanks. (I did get your very kind email and haven't needed to respond via email yet. Thanks!) Take care, HG | Talk 21:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Patience: Thanks for bringing that up. That's indeed a key ingredient. The problem is that even if you're patient, others, even well-meaning people, may be less patient. At SLR, one very helpful editor left because they was impatient with me. It's not easy: Not only do you need to take both sides of the partisan divide into account, but also both sides of this temperamental or generational divide.

I can not say if the list you are planning would encourage people from both sides to join. My hunch is rather not. You already allow members to write their affiliations in the member list (which we don’t), so I would just wait and see what happens. Ask some of the partisan people you trust what they would need before they’d consider joining.

My concern wasn’t so much about openness: In the SL case, partisanship was in the open already anyway. My concern was more about strengthening non-partisan thinking. I'm afraid your list could lead to discussion like “you’re X” – “No, I’m not!” – which are potentially endless inter-personal squabbles! But we need to acknowledge reality; no two such conflicts are the same. It's possible that in the I-P conflict you need to start with this step, which would have been a step backwards for us. In other words, maybe you have to start from square 0, while we were fortunate enough to start at square 1.

I haven't had the time to give the ArbCom case any more than a cursory glance; I was hoping to get around to that over the weekend, primarily with the intention to learn from it for WP:SLR. I believe that overall, it's a big advantage that you have the ArbCom case. For example: For us, it was a problem getting respected by non-members. We had to work hard on that and received that respect only after we had undeniable successes. On the other hand, that’s a pitfall for you: It is important for a project like this that members feel it’s their own project, not just something that’s imposed from above. For that reason, I really urge you to focus on winning members now. And do so by e-mail if possible, you’ll hear things they would never tell you openly, which is immensely useful for a project like yours. Since you identify yourself on your user page as specifically interested in the Jewish side, and you don’t write that you speak Arabic, it is especially important that you find somebody from the Palestinian side who is willing to put in many hours together with you on this. — Sebastian 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, it would be good to gain members now. I like what we've started with, esp a few uninvolved and experienced people like you and Durova. Myself, I try to stay non-partisan and hardly ever directly edit articles on these topics -- mostly I work in a facilitating role. Indeed, so far, it is only the Palestinian side (i.e., incl. those sympathetic, I'd say) who've shown interest in the WikiProject (esp the battleground statistics page). I think it will be harder to get folks from the pro-Israeli side -- I hesitate to speculate, but perhaps some feel that they're in a somewhat stronger position here and may not see much benefit from a more collaborative, conciliatory approach. Of course, it's hard to generalize. (Also, I generally eschew working via email, I think folks are pretty sensitive to canvassing and behind-the-scenes stuff.) Anyway, not sure who I'd approach on either side, or how such approaches would be perceived by others. Well, I'll keep thinking about it. Also, ArbCom will be an advantage if it brings some pressure on folks to work together appropriately. Thanks for your intelligent appraisal. HG | Talk 04:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I wasn't aware of how you had been contributing. Now, suppose you think you can win someone from the pro-Palestinian side, how do you think the folks from the pro-Israeli side will react? Is there a risk that you could share the fate of WP:NCSLC, which was doomed when nobody from one side wanted to join the project because it only contained editors from the other side, or do you think the pro-Israeli people recognize you as neutral?

A suggestion in this context: You could ask ArbCom for a ruling like our WP:SLR#Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement. It worked really well for us since it is binding for everybody, including people who are not members of the project or signatories to the agreement. For the same reason, I believe it should also work if it's not decided by the project, but by ArbCom. Rlevse, who is now an ArbCom clerk, just "totally supported" the WT:SLR#Continuation of SLR agreement, so I would assume that he would also put in a good word for such a move in your case. The only thing that wouldn't map easily to you would be the question of who gets to vote on questions related to the agreement. In our case, that's naturally the signatories to the agreement. If you can get such a ruling for IPCOLL members, it would also provide an incentive to participate at IPCOLL, which might just be what you need.

A word about e-mail: Whatever you do at Wikipedia, there is always a random chance that someone will complain about it. You can't make everyone happy, but you will win over a sufficient number of good people by acting on principles that people can agree with. (I officially pledged to follow this set of principles, but that's probably not necessary. Several people told me they didn't care about those nice words, all they care about is how a person acts.) Don't worry too much about how to approach people. Your good intentions will shine through!

There will always be people who just use a word that relates to a policy or guideline because it is powerful. With these people, do two things: (1) Don't take the word they're using seriously - stick with the actual policy instead. (2) Do take their true, often hidden, needs seriously. (For compassionate listening to needs I recommend the book Nonviolent communication.)

Canvassing is a good example for such a powerful word: Don't be afraid of the accusation; just stick with WP:CANVAS. If you send mail to a handful of editors on either side, then you are clearly not canvassing: Of the four criteria, you score as "friendly notice" on three. And now that I think about it, why not ask openly on their talk page? I would, however, encourage people to reply by e-mail if they have any reservations. I would also explicitly say that you invite every editor who is willing to cooperate, and you're just arbitrarily limiting the number of messages to avoid canvassing. That would reduce the risk of being accused of bias.

I need to say one thing, however: I wouldn't have been able to do what I did for SL without heavy use of e-mail. I felt it was important precisely because I wanted to do justice to both sides. Think about it this way: If you want to build trust with people, you meet them face to face, so they have a chance to talk "tacheles".

Lastly, we also have a good mediator, who successfully mediated this related case. You may want to contact them both on the talk page and by e-mail, and give them my regards! — Sebastian 07:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent guidance, thanks. One thing I sense is that you've worked hard to organize SLR but I'm not sure whether I can commit to the time/effort for such a role. In any case, I'd really like to continue some of this conversation at the Project Talk page, esp in terms of balance of members and how that would relate to our (still undefined) mission. Maybe you or I could even copy some of your points about SLDRA and members for that Talk page? Thanks again. HG | Talk 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, such things do take time! For several months, that was my full-time job! However, it may not take as long for you; for one, you're already familiar with the area, and if you are already recognized as neutral by at least a few editors on both sides, that saves you another month. And having ArbCom on your side also speeds up the process. Moreover, you already have several other neutral people, so the burden is not all on your shoulders. But you seem to be the one who has most energy driving this, which is why I think it would be best if you could reach out to others and invite them. I would love to help you more, but I have a full time job now, plus a number of other commitments, so I unfortunately can't take on any new commitments now.

I am fine with moving whatever you feel is relevant to the Project Talk page. I'm happy to do this in a dedicated location there together with you - e.g. a box that makes it clear that it's not a personal statement but a collaborative one that's in progress. I propose that you take the lead by writing a summary of what you feel is relevant, and I would then fine tune it. — Sebastian 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 21

Sebastian, thanks so much for the encouragement w/yr latest note. Two q's. (1) How did you do those SLR recent changes lists? Can you or somebody you know do something similar for IPCOLL if I help w/the list of categories/articles to watch? (2) I think I need to do something about the membership balance soon. I'm toying with the idea of a recommendation that no new "Palestinian" side folks join until we get some "Israeli" side editors (who haven't stepped in yet). Thanks again. HG | Talk 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the WP:SLR#watchlists? I first created pure text lists of page names. (I got the article names from Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Banner_WPSLR, and the project page names from my watchlist). Then I put them into Microsoft Word, where I inserted "{{La2|" and "}}" before and after each name. (Actually I did that by replacing all paragraph breaks with paragraph breaks that have that text added to the right and left.) If you give me a plain text list of the page names you want to watch, I can create the list from it. — Sebastian 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, about the balance, that was a big concern for me, too. That was actually a big part of the e-mail negotiations before we even started the project. But even so, I was really concerned after our 4th member joined and we had 2 of one side, and one of the other. However, I don't think it's quite as bad for you, since you already have some neutral people. I think it would create bad sentiments if you introduced a quota, and I think there are better ways. First, it seems to me like you have qualities that would make you a good person to invite others. You have a nice way of speaking with others, you speak Hebrew, and you have enthusiasm for IPCOLL. Please reconsider your reservation to e-mails. You could either start by writing to a few Israeli people you feel comfortable with, as I proposed above, or you could post a notice on your Israeli sister project. (You need this anyhow, because if they are your sister, you must be their sister, so you have a good reason to bring it up on their talk page. Of course, you would also bring it up on your Palestine sister project's talk page, but you can write there that you thankfully already got some Palestians, so you're not looking as urgently.) In either case, I personally would really recommend that you encourage e-mail. If anyone says anything critical about that, send them my way. — Sebastian 07:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I should add: You can use chat, too. It just so happens that I didn't use it, but some people prefer it. — Sebastian 09:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. The watchlists sound like a fair amount of work, esp if you aim to keep it updated. I don't object to us putting an notice on the other WikiProjects; haven't gotten around to it myself, partly because I'm not sure we have much to draw folks in yet. Meanwhile, if you know any uninvolved editors/admins who might be interested, pls spread the word! thanks again, be well, HG | Talk 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a fair amount of manual work. That's precisely the work for a bot; now that there's two project that can use it, it might make sense to request such a bot.

There are plenty of uninvolved editors - 99% of Wikipedia editors probably never edited an I-P article. But you already got more uninvolved than involved editors in the project. I thought in yesterday's conversation I convinced you that you needed more involved editors in your project. Why are you still only looking for uninvolved editors?

A different story is if you need admins. To enforce something like the interim agreement, you do. My first thought is about the admins that made SLDRS possible (before I was an admin). FayssalF was one of them, he already signed up, which is great, but I'm not sure how much time he has for this project. Another one was Rlevse. He would be very good for that, but he probably is busy, because he's well aware of this project and hasn't joined yet. You could still ask him though. The other SLDRA admins were Black Falcon, Jehochman and Haemo. You could also just ask at WP:AN. — Sebastian 08:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help with mediation case?

Hello. I just joined medcab, and involved myself maybe a little prematurely with an Israeli-Palestinian article (Gilad Shalit). I've been reading over your guidelines and am wondering if maybe you could help me out a little bit, or just see how I'm doing. As a point of interest (and a slightly manipulative factoid ;): Xavexgoem is a cypher of Sebastian :) Xavexgoem (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure! I'll look at it tomorrow; I'm a bit tired tonight. In the meantime, could you please give me your e-mail address? — Sebastian 05:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] answer

[2] Sorry] Ceedjee (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I agree with deleting my post there. Still, I really urge you to resist the temptation to conduct original research. — Sebastian 08:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Original research... I don't and never conducted original research. Could you please explain on what you base your analysis to consider I did so ? :-( Once more, I repeat my credo : let's discuss on the basis of Historians book and source our minds. Wikipedia must focus on the knowledge and not on our minds. I make a clear and perfect distinction between my minds and what is not known and what historians say. I gave 5 references. I have many others (see the google.books link). I don't understand you. Are you sure this comment were for me ???? Ceedjee (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant specifically for you. You did indeed write many good contributions in that discussion. But you also wrote statements like "it starts on May 14. All events that arose before are in the background...", which are not backed up by sources and, to my uninvolved impression, seem like OR. I had to write this to you since I wrote a similar statement to Zeq, who seems to make the contrary claim to you. — Sebastian 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oups. Ok, you are right but this is a misunderstanding : I meant in the article 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see in this, the events before May 14, 48 are in the background). An external reliable source for this would be Howard Sachar, A history of Israel. I am quite sure he starts his account of the war on May 14 (with a chapter name : the Independence War - I will check). And another source is Tom Segev, One Palestine Complete who stops his work on May 14, 1948 (but this is also because it is the end of the Mandate).

Just for your information, I wrote fr:Protagonistes de la Guerre de Palestine de 1948, fr:Guerre civile de 1947-1948 en Palestine mandataire (translated in english by "user:It's is not a genetive"), fr:Massacre de Qibya and recently fr:Émeutes de 1920 en Palestine mandataire... Find a sentence without source, particulary in the last two ones. ;-) And look at my introduction page : "I defend the point of view any information on wp:fr must be sourced.

I am a third side in the I-P articles. The one who defends the sourcing on historical articles. I don't care the other issues.

Anyway, thank you for your mediation efforts. Ceedjee (talk) 09:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification and your extensive explanations! I actually don't really want to mediate in the I-P conflict because I don't know enough about the conflict, and because I'm German, which will understandably raise some eyebrows in case I have to say something critical about a pro-Israeli editor or viewpoint. I just very much hope that IPCOLL becomes a success, and I try to my part to help with that. — Sebastian 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a generality and I cannot source this but «it is well-known» that German are the most appropriate people to deal any I-P issue a neutral way because of the memory work performed in Germany after the world, which I think is unique in the History and which taught them to deal these sensible issues with the appropriated distance.

Ich habe ein paar Monaten in Zürich gearbeitet und meine Kinder lernen Deutsch in der Schule. Aber ich kann nicht viel auf Deutsch schreiben. Ich prakticiert es niet genoeg :-(...

Tschuss, Ceedjee (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, danke für Deine nette Antwort! Du scheinst ja auch Holländisch zu sprechen, wie man an den letzten beiden Wörtern sehen kann. Mein Französisch ist leider nicht so gut wie Dein Deutsch.

Thank you also for the encouragement about mediation. I'm not sure about "most appropriate", but I have to agree that it's not a good excuse. It is indeed amazing how people can overcome difficulties that seem to prevent them from doing well at an activity - I'm thinking of speech impaired Demosthenes, Django Reinhardt who excelled at the guitar after he lost two fingers, or Victor Frankl, who found the meaning of life in the suffering of the Holocaust. But I must say, I'm not that ambitious. I have a full time job, and I'm already stretching myself thin with similar activities, so I have to limit myself. But I believe that the "Aufarbeitung" (often translated as "reconciliation", although your translation "memory work" fits better) motivated me to help out in the Sri Lanka conflict in the first place. — Sebastian 06:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Working Group login

Hi SebastianHelm, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I confirm that "User:SebastianHelm" on the WG wiki is me and I have sole control of the account. — Sebastian 04:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Guess I missed your msg, sorry. Replied by email. Be well, HG | Talk 12:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My user name

...is kinda Welsh. I had to come up with a user name for my first ISP account (almost 15 years ago now!) in a few minutes, & took the first proper name that I saw on my bookshelf, from the book The Poetry of Llywarch Hen. "Llywarch" was one letter too long for my ISP, so I dropped the "a".

BTW no, I don't know how to pronounce it. I need someone fluent in Welsh to confirm that I pronounce the "ll" correctly. :) -- llywrch (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WG experiment

Hiya, I've started a thread about my experiment at WP:AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If you have time, I'd appreciate if you could weigh in there. Thanks, Elonka 12:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sebastian, thanks for your note! Good to hear from you and esp about Elonka's experiment. You're right; I guess I'm on some kind of wikibreak, since I'm so busy I haven't been contributing and lately haven't even checked my watchlist as regularly as I would like. IPCOLL could definitely use some more active organizing, if you have any suggestions/idea pls pursue them. Meanwhile, I hope you are well. By all means, keep in touch and best wishes with your pursuits here or elsewhere. Take care, HG | Talk 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could both of you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --Elonka 16:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your messages! I plan to take more time for Wikipedia over this weekend, and I hope I'll get around to this, too. Sorry for the wait! --— Sebastian 05:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)