Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop

Arbitration policy
Hi, I appreciate Kirill's contributions to the case, but is it by all means clear, that we don't have a Conflict of interest here? I mean Kirill Lokshin has a warm relationship with Grafikm fr, including e-mail correspondance. Kirill has been awarded a Raok barnstar by Grafikm fr and Kiril from his side has awarded 3 medals to Grafikm fr:. It should be confirmed, that there's no conflict of interest here.Constanz - Talk 10:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a cordial working relationship with Grafikm_fr (as I do with a great many long-term editors) due to the fact that we are both active in the Military history WikiProject, particularly its organizational side (Grafikm_fr runs Grafikbot, which has been used by the project for article tagging and newsletter delivery purposes). I would say that this relationship is merely a professional one between editors that happen to be active within the same broad subject area, and who therefore have regular occasion to discuss matters concerning it; I do not believe that I have a conflict of interest regarding him, nor that I will be unable to act impartially regarding this dispute.
 * (The email Grafikm_fr refers to contained some comments regarding a user conduct issue that was occurring last August that he wished to make privately; it led to an exchange of three further emails. I do not believe that we have exchanged any other emails, either before or after that occasion.)
 * I will, of course, defer to the other Arbitrators' opinion on this matter; if they feel that this constitutes a conflict of interest, I will recuse myself from further participation here. Kirill Lokshin 14:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is potential for this to be seen as a conflict of interest, and you are willing to defer to the Arbitrators' opinion on this matter, perhaps there ought to be a formal motion made on the workshop page? But since this has been brought to light and some shadow of doubt has now been raised in the minds of some of the participants, perhaps the right thing to do would be to recuse anyway. Martintg 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to make such a motion if you feel it is warranted. Personally, however, I do not see a valid reason for me to recuse myself here. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reassurance. Given the nature of this topic, it is important that there be no suggestion or hint of potential bias. Having voted against bringing this matter to arbitration, I applaud your effort in taking the initiative to start and steer the workshop process thus far. Martintg 00:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The whole concept of the recusal (disqualification) for the participant in the proceedings has nothing to to with forcing out those who you think will come up with the conclusion unfavorable to you. This would make a mockery of any process.

The concept of recusal is based on striking out those who may have a real, or reasonably perceived, conflict of interest in the outcome of the proceedings such as being the party of the case or being on record with statements that may reflect that person's bias. It is very important to bring the motion of recusals if either party believes in good faith that the arbitrator, or a clerk, have a significant enough conflict of interest in the outcome of the case to make sure the fairness of the proceedings are unlikely to be questioned. Therefore, if Constanz or Marting have a reason to believe that KL's participation in the case would be inappropriate, I urge them to not drop the matter but argue the case of his recusal in all seriousness. However, if they do not have any serious arguments to advance this, they should just cut it rather than try to float the trial balloons to gauge the reaction and see how it goes. --Irpen 01:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you are exhibiting serious ABF if you are suggesting we are attempting to float a trial balloon. Constanz had a serious and legitimate query regarding potential conflict of interest. Since Kirill suggested that he would defer to the other Arbitrators' opinion on this matter, I merely queried as to what mechanism he would use to assess the other Arbitrators opinions on the matter, perhaps they use a private IRC channel to communicate? Frankly, I don't understand the point of your message here. Martintg 02:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Historically, each arbitrator has individually determined whether he or she should recuse in a given case. Formal motions to the full panel to recuse Arbitrator A have not been well-received. Of course an arbitrator is free to consult with other arbitrators or anyone else of his or her choice in making this decision. Additionally, even if an arbitrator does recuse in a case (which I don't think is necessary here), he or she would still be entitled to participate in discussion or workshopping like any other editor. Newyorkbrad 02:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with one note. Such arbitrator (recused) who is workshopping, presenting evidence, etc., should not simultaneously discuss the case with other arbitrators along the closed channels such as arbitrator's-only IRC or mailing list. No way the recused judges are allowed in the chambers of the judicial panel deliberating the case in real life. --Irpen 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand the point of your rant above, where you suggest over 24 hours after I thanked Kirill and applauded him on his efforts, that "they should just cut it rather than try to float the trial balloons". As far as I was concerned the matter was closed long before you entered with your comment. Martintg 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come ON!!!
Why are Irpen and Grafim even allowed to still edit Wikipedia? Why didn't an admin ban them at the first spurious accusation of holocaust denial? And why is the Arbcom being so damn limp-wristed in the proposed rulings on this case?

It's hard to get more obviously offensive than falsely accusing someone of holocaust denial for simply reporting the facts as any decent book on World War II reports them. And the Arbcom offers a mild reprimand? To both sides? Bullshit. Utter bullshit. PurplePlatypus 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, many people are probably thinking this way.Constanz - Talk 08:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like voting has begun on the /Proposed Decision page. Seems the finding of fact of inadequate citation where one side of the debate has generally failed to cite the sources for their assertions isn't even listed for a vote. Martintg 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us see, then. Constanz - Talk 15:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Analysis
This edit clarified the issue here for me.

The content debate here is about whether the article has a right to exist at all; i.e. whether the subject is valid for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It is not about citing sources to support or object to the use of the term "occupation". No specific parts of the article are accused of being POV. The current tag on top of the article states: "This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated." I find this to be an accurate description of the dispute.

Whether the article should exist or not can only be determined by community discussion and consensus. As always, participation by as many members of the community as possible should be encouraged. During this process I feel that the tag is entirely appropriate. I feel that both sides of the debate have good points.

User conduct during this dispute has been unacceptable. The term "Holocaust denial" has no place in this debate. However, resolving these issues is up to ArbCom. --Ideogram 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute
This is going to be a little disorganized, since I really need sleep, but I wanted to put something down.

You are correct that you may not get more than ten people participating. This is an unavoidable limitation based on the nature of Wikipedia. However, I hope you agree that more is surely better; we really have no other way of making the decision that doesn't concentrate authority in a smaller group of people, which would raise questions of whose opinion counts and whose doesn't.

I'm going to take a risk here and try to characterize Irpen's position. Note that I have not actually read everything he has written here. Basically, I note that the period 1940-1945 naturally falls into three categories as stated in the table of contents, the "first Soviet occupation", the "Nazi occupation", and the "Second Soviet occupation". This immediately raises the question of what the three distinct periods have in common. If you view them all as true occupations, the answer may be obvious, but apparently Irpen et. al. do not see it that way.

One way I can think of to cite sources to resolve this dispute is to show that the term "Occupation of Latvia" is indeed commonly used to refer to the period 1940-1945. Again, I have not read the entire debate so forgive me if this has already been done.

Well that's all I can think of at the moment. --Ideogram 00:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I understand there would be problems with concentration of authority and obviously I can’t propose any alternative. If the dispute has to be accepted as being about content – ok.


 * I'm not convinced that it is possible to resolve this content dispute - establish consensus, - if flat dissent or unsubstantiated opinion can be employed to oppose something. I did gather some references to demonstrate the use of word occupation (here Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, Google Book search) and other references, such as declarations reflecting positions by States or respectable  international body such as European Parliament (EU) were provided in the talk. A couple of legal sources I inserted in the article itself. More of all kinds of references, such as the use of term in “mainstream” media, can be provided. There is no doubt in my mind that, outside Wikipedia, by now there exists a broad consensus as to the applicability and use of "occupation" (both as legal term and informally) and that this consensus can be convincingly demonstrated using sources. Conversely, it would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to demonstrate anything resembling consensus for the notion that at some point in time, Latvia's legal existence, in accordance with international law, practice and customs, was extinguished, and it legally became part of Soviet Union (that no occupation took place or that it was terminated at some point in time, prior to Latvia reasserting her sovereignty).


 * There are two problems, as I see them:


 * - Firstly, it is the question whether this discussion, which has legal aspects to it, as well as the references supporting it, can and should be within the scope of article itself? Whether the article itself has to include information justifying use of term “occupation” and appropriate references, that is. It is fairly complex topic, and needs extensive analysis if it is to be presented convincingly. Or whether it is sufficient that such references are provided upon request, at the talk page.


 * - And secondly, our opponents seem to be under no obligation to accept any evidence – thus, I believe, the impasse.


 * Notably, those challenging title (right of article to exist) have not initiated anything that would come to a vote - move beyond placing a tag and asserting lack of consensus for removal. No proposal to delete article, no request to move the article, for example.


 * And last point: two tags were placed on the article. One was mentioned by you (challenging title and scope) and I agree it would be appropriate to tag for the duration of dispute. (When and how exactly will it end, though? How many times can such disputes be re-initiated?) But there is the second tag implying non-compliance with the policies -- namely that article "must be written from a neutral point of view and must not include unverifiable or unsuitable material, or original research." I hope you would agree that, with the exception of something glaring and obvious, it is next to impossible to address such concerns unless those making claims are reasonably specific. Doc15071969 17:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a very important distinction here that you are missing. What needs to be verified is not whether the Soviet presence can be termed an occupation, but whether the term "occupation of Latvia" is commonly used to refer to the period 1940-1945. Otherwise you would really need three articles, "First Soviet occupation of Latvia", "Nazi occupation of Latvia", and "Second Soviet occupation of Latvia".

Once references to usage of the term are established, it is not necessary to include them in the article. The mere existence of the article implies that it is a commonly used term worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Consensus does not require unanimity. If you can get agreement from some neutral parties, such as myself, then your opponents cannot simply stand on their opinions.

I do believe that the second tag is unnecessary. --Ideogram 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * hm, dear Ideogram, if you look at the page once again, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:1940%E2%80%931945_occupation_of_Latvia) you'll see that there has been plenty of neutral opinions. If I'm not mistaken, then only two out of those (one IP user and an established user) have added something to the 'dispute side'. and yes, here Grant agrees as well, that e.g title Soviet occupation should be used. Constanz - Talk 08:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to read that whole page. What you need to do is run a straw poll where you list proposed solutions to the problem and participants can indicate which they approve of. --Ideogram 08:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Polls are evil. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  10:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim is that you have not specified any way to address your objections. If your opinion cannot be altered by any means then trying to determine where consensus lies is useful. --Ideogram 10:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If the decision about mediation passes, I believe it will be the next step, not some kind of straw poll. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  10:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you do, but the claim is that you have not made any specific points that your opponents can answer. --Ideogram 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? A set of improvements was proposed on the talk page way before the arbitration. If it's a joke, it ain't funny. And phrases like "I don't care what you do" are mildly offensive as well. -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In a dispute in which terms like "Holocaust denial" were thrown around, I am not at all concerned about being "mildly offensive". I'm just telling you what your opponents claim.  Obviously they feel your proposal is not sufficient.  Don't try to argue with me about it, talk to them.  --Ideogram 10:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)