Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Proposed decision

message: Arbitrators active on this case:
*Blnguyen
*Charles Matthews
*Flcelloguy
*FloNight
*Fred Bauder
*Jdforrester
*Jpgordon
*Kirill Lokshin
*Paul August
*UninvitedCompany
There are 10 active arbitrators and none are recused, so the majority is 6.
Mackensen, appointed after the case was accepted, is deemed to be recused and non-participating, unless he states otherwise.  As of March 1, Morven, Raul654 and SimonP are also inactive. Thatcher131 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators

message: The proposed enforcement paragraph should probably refer to "the article" (singular rather than plural), meaning Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945, or am I missing something? Newyorkbrad 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that was just me being careless. Kirill Lokshin 17:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost fixed it myself as a permissible clerical grammatical/typographical correction, but wanted to be sure. Newyorkbrad 17:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor comment

message: There are 9 proposed principles and 6 proposed remedies . Why are not all of those voted here? Constanz - Talk 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, Arbitrators only move those proposals which they are actually in favor of to the proposed decision page.  If a particular proposal hasn't been moved, it's pretty safe to assume that none of the Arbitrators who have voted so far consider it a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't everything voted?

message: “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.” -, (emphases mine) 
The latter part of the proposal - just like the whole arbitration here - has potentially dangerous consequences. It will give a 'good' precedent for all kinds of minority point of view pushers and/or political extremists and/or blatant trolls. To allow material being removed by odd, unverifiable claims will e.g lead to a possibility of Holocaust article being attacked by Holocaust deniers, who claim 'there are other points of view' and that not everyone agrees that this genocide took place. Of course, the first ones to use the accepted precedent of unverifiability will be different kinds of whitewashers of Stalinist crimes, who - I'm sure - have been carefully watching this arbitration process. Constanz - Talk 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording there was copied straight out of WP:V; there's nothing being introduced that wasn't already a prominent part of policy. Kirill Lokshin 17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is the case when an editor has provided copious amounts of material supported by reliable sources, but others continue to dismiss it with claims of "systemic bias" or "heavy nationalism". It is very demoralising when editors go to considerable efforts to find reliable sources, only to be dismissed with uncited baseless counter claims. Whilst you were prepared to make a finding of fact that both sides failed to cite reliable sources in their discussions, it's a pity you were not prepared to make a similar finding of fact when I proved that only one side had made the effort to back their assertions with reliable sources . Martintg 22:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I urge the arbitrators to consider things over again. If it was copied from somewhere, I think the admins should have made a more elaborate proposal instead - i.e, what would help to solve the WP:POINT attempts by a side, which disapproves all reasonable sources.If the current case ends with soapboxers equated with those who have endlessly tried to find acceptable and legal sources,... I am pesonally thinking of taking some steps in the future, like tagging some World War 2 articles, just because I personally might prefer different attitudes. E.g when Viktor Suvorov's ideas are not formulated in an article, nothing should stop me from claiming that the article is 'biased' without it. A good idea would be to strike Operation Barbarossa article and claim that “there are some sources” which say German assault was a pre-emptive strike etc (which I don't belive in). Try to claim that it wasn't so!?!Constanz - Talk 09:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: PS. Almost forgot! Holodomor would be the first item, that represents “systemic bias” and is a result of “heavy nationalism”. The category genocide has been removed numerous times - but without it, the article is biased! Many Western countries recognise the events as genocide against Ukrainian people! Constanz - Talk 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Objection by Constanz