Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:15, 10 February 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Summary position of primary editor

1) Very simple. The article itself should become a short summary and pointer to the articles

Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany and
this article, renamed and solely focused on the Soviet Occupation of Latvia;
That the latter article be allowed to be, and remain, titled, the Soviet Occupation of Latvia and that said term "occupation" be protected from POV tagging;
That the article be allowed to fully document the periods of Soviet occupation from 1940-41 and 1944-1991, again with said term "occupation" protected from POV tagging.
I agree to archive the "why-an-occupation" section in the article's talk page--N.B., that section was solely the result of being asked by someone encountering the same occupation denial issue regarding another one of the Baltic States and requesting a response;
and so, accordingly, I additionally request that protection of "Soviet occupation of...": that is, being able to use the term "occupation" in both article title and article body and not be POV tagged, be extended to articles dealing with the other two Baltic States, Lithuania and Estonia, as well.

Having been the primary editor, including writing one article and then combining with a similar one, I again extend my invitation, as I have done repeatedly on every Baltic States main article and various related occupation talk pages: if you agree with the Russian position that Latvia's incorporation into the Soviet Union was completely legal (as is indicated in the article), then please present sources which we may include in documenting that position.

This invitation has been met with an abject silence of facts, however, escalating into insults where:

Latvians of that period are characterized as the majority just waiting to get rifles from the Nazis so they can go out and slaughter Jews; Latvia and Latvians today, whether at home or part of the diaspora, are labeled Holocaust deniers (I don't think I need to comment futher);
Latvia today is characterized as an ethnocratic Russian-human-rights violating state (when, in fact, the majority of ethnic Russians are Latvian citizens; and, when the world conference of Russian journalists abroad came to Latvia planning to expose its human rights violations, even members of the Russian Duma attending admitted that the situation in Latvia was not as portrayed)

...none of which, incidentally, have anything to do with the Soviet occupation, leaving the only reasonable possible conclusion to being that these "Wikieditors" subscribe to the Soviet position which I myself heard expressed on the streets of Riga in a conversation passing the other way on the street (shortly after independence): "The next time, we'll send them ALL to Siberia."

Not even in the most controversial geo-political articles, Transnistria, for example, have I encountered the kind of hate-mongering I have found here, all done by parties insisting their voicings of opposition to the term "occupation" are objective and neutral.

Should my requests (3., 4., 6., protection of the term "ocupation" in title and contents against POV and related tagging) be denied by arbitration, then under the standard of equal treatment I must insist that every article on occupation and genocide in Wikipedia be forced to give equal space and voice to the deniers--and do so regardless of their ability/inability to produce supporting documentation. And then we'll see how long this sort of thing is tolerated.

If Latvia and the other Baltic states are to be a litmus test and precedent, then so be it. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Rephrasing as a behavioral issue (subsequent to Kirill Lokshin comment):

POV tags related to disputing the "occupation" of the Baltics which have been inserted with no further basis shall subject to removal.
Repeated insertion of such tags with no further basis will lead to warning, blocking, and if needed, banning of individuals in question.
Individuals removing such tags shall not be subject to 3RR (three revert rule). — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee does not rule on article content. Kirill Lokshin 18:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is POV'ing without sources or basis (i.e., "I deem this article to be POV") to indicate article is POV, which is a behavioral issue. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The tags are not content dispute in current case. A dispute - esp. such a long one - can only be based on sources. Original research and straw man arguments can't make up a dispute. Thus, the whole 'dispute' was Disruption by 3 users, who break the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR. Constanz - Talk 07:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I attempted to show on the evidence page is that tagging has spanned from the constructive to the disruptive. Illja's tagging has been constructive and nobody has any issue with it, while Grafikm's tagging has been totally disruptive, and the other taggers fall somewhere in between. I'll reorder list on the evidence page to reflect this. Martintg 01:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Assume good faith

1) All editors are expected to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Courtesy

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

True but I do not see how it is warranted. Why not excessively polite, the discussion was robust and clearly conducted in good faith, at least in the most part. --Irpen 04:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for civility is justified. All arguments must be verifiable; baseless and ugly accusations of Holocaust denial [1] [2] must be dropped as well as general anti-Baltic statements: [3] [4] --Constanz - Talk 10:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are all would be better of to live in an ideal world. The reality is that the level of civility issues in the particular discussion is as far as from being an ArbCom's concern as there can ever be. I mean, it would be nice to have a better level of civility at this article's talk, in Wikipedia overall and in life in general, true. However, the heat of the discussion was not even close to what goes on in a multitude of the articles on politically heated topics.

There are two excesses possible. One is to allow the incivility get out of hand and become truly a major problem (like it has been at, say #Admins IRC channel). This hasn't happened in this article. Another extreme is to allow the civility issues to be used as a weapon to resolve the editor's disagreements through pressing for sanctions against the opponent. This is also counterproductive. Robust discussions of fiercely disagreeing editors should be allowed to continue and in such discussions, occasional loss of temper on one or the other side is a possibility. Unless the problem reaches an intolerable degree, there is no need to overemphasize it.

Finally, if ArbCom wishes to make this particular article a showcase for the desired civility, it is noteworthy that representatives of both POV's were guilty of questionable spats. Invoking the Holocaust denial occured on both sides as well as some moderate amount of rather unpleasant ethnic talk, accusations of vandalism and in pushing the propaganda (Martintg and Constanz frequently did made such accusations and some such accusations can be found below at this very page. Need diffs?) If ArbCom sees this severe enough to warrant the intrusion, so be it. In this case, I request ArbCom to also closely watch much more heated talk pages, such as Talk:New antisemitism, talk:Jogaila, talk:Continuation War and a host of other articles. I doubt ArbCom wants to become a civility police but if it does, it should start from the places where civility problems are more severe. That said, I will support enhanced civility as far as this article concerned as well. --Irpen 04:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

1) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perspectives are to be attributed to their advocates.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala. Kirill Lokshin 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Neutral point of view policy actually states: representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. Martintg 02:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently, as of now no other perspectives other than the majority POV, which I subscribe to, could be mentioned, since there are no reliable sources for those. True, the article states clearly that the Russian Federation (minority POV in Wiki guidelines) rejects occupation (see intro). --Constanz - Talk 10:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nationalist point of view

1) Editors with a particular national background are encouraged to edit from a neutral point of view, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Avala. Kirill Lokshin 23:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I don't think there has been any evidence given yet that the article has been presented with an overly nationalist viewpoint. I believe the primary editor Vecrumba was born and raised in the USA, so culturally he would be very American in his outlook. Besides, the test of the validity of a particular viewpoint is the existence of published sources. Does the act of a Latvian museum holding a Soviet document confirming the fact of occupation taint that document as nationalist viewpoint? Martintg 03:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a Nationalist POV, then most probably from 3 Russian users (Ghirlandajo (has left Eikipedia after another arbitration process), Grafikm fr and Irpen). Only non-Russian who clearly supports them is Petri Krohn. On talk page you see that the present article has been regarded as neutral by numerous people from Poland, the US (an IP user whom I know) etc.Constanz - Talk 10:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic talk again Constanz? Please cut it. Besides, you are wrong. Neither Grafik nor myself are Russians. --Irpen 04:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Verifiability and sourcing

1) Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Wikipedia:Verifiability. Kirill Lokshin 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Verifiability and sourcing applies also the alternate POV implied by the application of a POV tag. Perhaps this statement of principle should read: Editors adding tags should articulate and make an effort to cite a reliable source supporting their implied alternative POV, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to tag the article, not with those seeking to remove it. Martintg 02:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the term in the sources may or may not justify the choice of the article's title and the propriety of the article's scope. As for the name, we have a rather well-written guideline that explains how to make a choice among controversial names and History of country (period) title is neither controversial nor implies either POV. As for the article's scope and composition, a simple common sense tells us that separate events are entitled to their own articles and the broader articles that are intended to cover several events spread over a period of time are articles that call for a history title. --Irpen 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been established that the title is controversial, certainly not in the West, where English language Wikipedia is used. The point of WP:NPOV and WP:Undue_weight is that Wikipedia ought to reflect the majority of views held within its community of use. There may well be an article in Russian language Wikipedia titled Liberation of Latvia, if that reflects the majority viewpoint within the Russian language world, then who are we to go in and push a particular western viewpoint. Martintg 17:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proposed separating the Nazi and Soviet occupations in the discussion page. Focusing on the Soviet occupation, which appears to be the problem here (no one has disputed the Nazi occupation): the entire history of Latvia for that period, or, taking a wider view, until restoration of independence in 1991, is a far larger topic than the aspects of that history that deal with the occupation. There can certainly be a "History of..." article, but that is a different and larger topic than "Occupation of....".

And yet again, you label "occupation" as a "controversial" term when there is no controversy, and when neither you nor anyone else has brought forward any evidence which confirms the Baltics joined the USSR freely, willingly, and legally--prerequisites for the Soviet presence to not be (correctly as it is currently) termed an occupation. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of false assertion above. First, no one is proposing the title of Liberation of Latvia as an alternative to this one. Secondly, the proposal to separate different events by covering them in different articles was supported by me very strongly. "Focusing on Soviet occupation" is not a problem per se. It is a problem when it is done in the article, whose scope, according to its title, should include also other events and those events are not covered, seemingly on purpose, as those include the atrocities committed by the military adversaries of the Soviets: the Nazis and their local accomplices. I would be fine with Occupation of Latvia (1940) as one article, Occupation of Latvia (1941-1945) as another article. Further, the article for the 1944 Soviet takeover in the course of the driving out of the Nazis already exists and its name is not Occupation of anything but the Battle of the Baltic (1944). I would be perfectly all right with the existence of the article covering all of these events as well. Such article would also cover whatever else happened in Latvia over this time period and the title of such article would be History of Latvia (Year1-Year2). Moreover, all the Verkumba's interesting elaborations about the applicability of the "occupation" term to the Soviet control of the Baltics in general, can be moved to the Occupation of Baltic Republics (term) where they applicability of the term would be explained. However, the article in its current form and shape is non-compliant because only selected events are tendentiously presented and, contrary to your (and mine) suggestion to separate different events between different articles, the article by the scope defined by its title attempts to paste them together. This is a normal disagreement and this is the first time I see this to be sorted by ArbCom. Fine by me. Let it happen. --Irpen 05:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article probation

1) Where user conduct issues seem to revolve around a single articles, and where there are a large number of editors involved, and those editors are not disruptive otherwise, it may make more sense to put the article itself on probation rather than individual editors. Administrators are empowered to block or ban editors from editing the article for misconduct like edit warring, incivility, original research, or other disruption relating to the article on probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Election. Kirill Lokshin 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I am not so sure about the efficacy of punishing the article. Both Irpen and Grafikm have been POV disputing articles such as Holodomor [5][6] and Soviet Invasion of Poland [7], in fact any article that seems to contradict the Russian nationalist agenda of glorifying the Soviet Union appears to be a target.Martintg 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely false accusation. The Holodomor article in its current stable form was mostly written by Irpen who added multitudes of sources that confirm Soviet atrocities and took an effort to fend off the attacks by several, now banned, users who were pushing the revisionist Stalinist agenda. That the same user:Irpen, an ethnic Ukrainian himself, also opposed emotional, unscholarly and unsourced POV pushing by the other side is presented as a proof of a "Russian nationalist agenda" exemplifies habitual ABF by user:Martintg directed against his opponents. --Irpen 04:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others: