Case Opened on 01:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 02:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

You may add to the #Log of blocks and bans, if necessary in the future, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

• Constanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Martintg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grafikm fr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Various others

• Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Requests for comment[edit]

• Wikipedia:Third opinion
• WP:RfC (commented here)
• WP:RfC

When I first saw the dispute on talk page, going around the question, whether Latvia was occupied by the USSR or not, I thought it wasn't a real content dispute. A couple of users, me included, have removed the POV-title tag and non-compliant tag added by some users, and even reported admin noticeboards, believing Irpen's, Grafikm fr's & others' acts would qualify as improper use of dispute tags. That's so because the side who doesn't accept the claim, that the USSR occupied Latvia, has not provided any verifiable sources, that would undermine the accepted opinion. Also, it has not been clearly explained, in what way is the article non-compliant. However, this seems to qualify as content dispute, not abuse.

In my view

1. It has been proved on the talk page, that mainstream Western sources regard the events as Soviet occupation, and Grafikm fr's idea that “Baltic states joined USSR in 1940” is clearly not an accepted thesis in Western history writing. As it is proved on talk, the term occupation is widely used in this context: [1], incl. Britannica, Encarta and similar sources [2]
2. Although Irpen admited, that “[t]here is no doubt that annexation was illegal from the POV of the international law” [3], he and other people of his view have still argued, that the term occupation must not be used. So far, they have not presented any reputable sources, but have performed their own argumentation: Baltic states are said to have been members of the USSR (which is legally false, since the annexation was illegal), “were SSRs on their own rights, their representants sieged in the Supreme Soviet” and “All this hardly qualifies as "occupation"”, also interpretation with some factual errors in it etc.
3. Instead of recognizing the sources presented by the other side (or citing the alternative sources), occupation deniers sometimes link Russia's propaganda statements irrelevant to the subject, or express straw man arguments: to admit Soviet occupation is said to be “modern form of Holocaust denial”. Are some Britannica articles then written by Holocaust deniers? Actually, I think that there are no reputable sources which would say Latvia was not occupied by the USSR.
4. When directly asked, why should the title used in Britannica be called 'POV-title' here, then e.g Grafikm fr claims the term occupation “was crafted during the Cold War” and is now, thus, POV. However, this would be original research, since once again, no sources were given.
5. I agree, that the article itself is becoming a mess: due to the dispute, whether the occupation took place or not, the article has been filled with proofs, why the events were recognised as occupation by most of the word. Once we have formally admitted the stance of Western mainstream sources (i.e that Latvia was occupied), also opinion of the majority of people who have expressed their opinion on talk, we can start removing unnecessary proofs.
6. In view of this, ArbCom is asked to rule whether the events described in the article can be referred to as “Soviet occupation” and whether the article conforms to Wikipedia policies. Constanz - Talk 10:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Some users have claimed, as if this were a pure content dispute. However, one should note that a content dispute requires grounded opinions by both disputing sides, i.e verifiable sources must be cited by both sides. As it is, those who claim Latvia was not occupied, have NOT found ANY sources, they merely add tags, which they 'motivate' with their own inventions. I think this is WP:OR or soapboxing.Constanz - Talk 09:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Could someone please explain me, how can a dispute be resolved, if one side refuses to recognise WP:V and WP:NPOV (e.g majority POV)? Constanz - Talk 09:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purely a content dispute. The article is a mess, a textbook example of WP:TE. Its composition is a set of loosely related events arbitrary pasted together to create this article in its current shape thus making the history look even more tendentiously presented. Article's title is purposefully inflammatory. Article is full of original research and is unimprovable. The well explained tags are there to warn the reader about the article's problem. I would have AfDed that stuff but from experience AfD is usually decided based on the general validity of topic ignoring the article's having nothing to do with that. Article RfC was filed and the casual onlookers also offered changes, including the title change[4] [5] and compared the article's guardians' approach to Holocaust denial. None of the suggestions were implemented. So, every reason to keep the warning tags are there since the changes that would have made an article more compliant were fiercely opposed. That the uninvolved users saw the article's deficiencies proves that the tag was well justified.

If arbcom is to insert itself into this purely content dispute, its attention to the matter would be welcome, at least from me. Suggestions and objections at the talk are given in detail and arbcom members are invited to join the discussion. Maybe it's time for arbcom to change its traditional stance on refusal get into the content disputes. If so, I have a dozen of much more important irreconcilable articles and I will be happy to bring them to the ArbCom's attention. --Irpen 14:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some members are committing tag abuse to vandalise the article because in their personal opinion the title is purposefully inflammatory. By tagging the title POV they are effectively pushing their own POV that occupation did not occur and are giving undue weight to their own POV. They offer no verifiable references to support this alternative POV, just opinion and speculation. Many other contributors have provided references that Latvia was indeed occupied, including mainstream encyclopedias such as Britannica and Encarta. The article is not an arbitrary collection of loosely related events, but a tightly related sequence of occupations that occurred during WW2, in any case this point is not a POV-title issue but one of editorial style. Only one section is claimed to be OR not the whole article, so a section level OR tag is more appropriate. The article level tags are usually placed with no explanation or without sufficient explanation and certainly no verifiable references to an alternative POV are given. Some members have admitted their preference to AfD the article, but given difficulty in this approach, have resorted to vandalising the article via POV-title tagging. The article is a mess because of this continuing ongoing focus upon the title, which is probably the intent of this POV-title tagging, to stall progress in developing this article. Martintg 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond a mere content dispute. The issue concerns the abuse of the spirit of WP:NPOV, the intent of which is to reflect views held in common usage, by certain individuals who apply POV-title tags to promote a particular political view point that is not widely held. They offer no published source to support their implied alternative POV, which would be constructive in forming a consensus. Disinterested comment in Third Opinion and the rfcs agree that title is NPOV. Exhaustive discussion has been made on talk page regarding the term "occupation". There seems to be a core group of three individuals who seem to be immune to all evidence and third opinion and seem intent on persuing a dogmatic position. Application of article level POV tags is meant to be constructive, however in this particular case it is being used destructively because the one applying the tag has indicated a preference that the article be deleted entirely, so I don't think they are approaching this issue in good faith. Martintg 23:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how successful mediation would be when one side basically doesn't assume good faith in the motive of others and fling all manner of baseless accusations and conspiracy theory hoping it will stick. We have Petri Krohn claiming that failing to whitewash the facts of Stalinist crimes is tantamount to Holocaust denial [6]. We have Irpen claiming the article is tendentious, over emphasizing Soviet atrocities while saying nothing of Nazi crimes [7], while in fact Vercrumba clearly states that the Nazi section is incomplete [8] Grafikm reiterates Irpen's groundless accusations of tendentious editing to minimise Nazi crimes but goes even further and the accuses contributors to the article of being Baltic nationalists pushing the agenda of Nazism and Holocaust denial in his statement below[9] offending Vercrumba in the process, while I am presented as a single purpose account in conspiracy with Constanz, although I've never corresponded with him ever. God only knows why they find the description of Stalinist crimes committed during the occupation of Latvia so "inflammatory", millions of Russians suffered too. Perhaps they enjoy Balt baiting or perhaps there is some other political agenda at play and this article is merely their battleground to sock it to those "nazi balts", who knows, but it is rather offensive, given tragic history Churchill characterised as that deadly comb that ran back, forth and back again over the Baltics [10]. Frankly I don't see how mediation will moderate their behaviour. Martintg 11:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Petri Krohn's views expressed in his "heart of the matter" statement below [11] is also shared by Irpen and Grafikm. It appears to confirm my second conclusion, that the article has become their battleground to serve a larger political agenda, in this case against the perceived injustices of the Baltic States. I don't think Wikipedia ought to become a platform for soapboxing and manipuation of past history to serve political expediencies of today. This is beyond a content dispute. Their POV tagging appears to be driven by their political views, this explains their chronic disregard for verifiable references to published sources. This case really ought to go to arbitration. Martintg 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! The citizenship laws passed in 1990s (labelled rather liberal in European context by e.g. Boris Meissner) are brought here by Petri as the real cause, accusations of “ethnocracy” (see below) are repeated. And if we come acquainted with Petris' other contributions on Baltic topic, we clearly see WHO might be using Wikipedia as tool to promote some personal points of view: a “Baltic gang” is said to be “harassing”, Petri's opponents are accusations of being “ethnofascist POV pushers”. And yes, poor Edward Lucas was also severy criticised (on his Wiki talk page) for his articles! It seems that everyone who doesn't agree with Petri's ideas about the Baltics will get his own part! I really think we need arbitration here. Constanz - Talk 09:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the authors, having combined two prior articles. I have already responded at length to Irpen's objections regarding the structure being a mess, I have clearly stated it is still a work in progress that has only thoroughly dealt with the first year of Soviet occupation. (There has also been discussion, since there is an article on the Nazi Occupation, that this would be devoted to the Soviet occupation alone for improved clarity.) I have also apologized for having to put in "why an occupation" because of all those who insist "occupation" is a POV term while providing not one single shred of evidence to support that position. I have posted requests on all three Baltic States discussion pages (where this sort of dispute has also occurred) inviting ANYONE with ANY evidence to the contrary that has ANY basis in fact to present it for discussion. There has been ZERO response.

The Occupation of Latvia lasted from the first Soviet occupation through the entire Soviet era. The Soviet presences in Latvia were an occupation for their entire duration until the reestablishment of the Latvian Republic continuous with that established in 1918. This position is accepted by the international community except by Russia, whose declaration by Russia's Duma I have cited. There is no other discussion of the alternate viewpoint, which, though I personally vehemently disagree with, would actually be quite informative: that is, why is it exactly that Russia denies the Soviet occupation? Especially when Lavrov was negotiating during the Soviet era with the Baltic S.S.R.s for the Soviet Union to declare its presence in the Baltics an occupation? (Sadly, original research based on sources directly involved--and which I have NOT included.) And why is there no other discussion? Not because the article is a POV Great Patriotic War denier, it's because there's simply no further insight to be had, not even in my "Concise Encyclopedia of the Latvian S.S.R." So, what is the article specifically non-compliant about?

• all the sources for the article are listed; there is absolutely nothing in the article that qualifies as my personally stated viewpoint or as original research or, indeed, any kind of personally drawn conclusion whatsoever; I have been completely scrupulous in this regard
• if Irpen wishes, I can footnote every last sentence from said reputable sources, his claim that the article is original research is completely, totally, and utterly baseless; sadly, the nature of the overall debate is that even when in I have quoted the Congressional Record of official findings of the United States government's congressional committees, which clearly find the Soviet presence an "occupation," even those references are shouted down as biased and inflammatory; and the wailing and gnashing of teeth over Latvia's Museum of Occupation as blatant POV incarnate is not to be believed (it would appear that even Soviet documents which clearly talk about occupying Latvia are now biased by the act of merely being held in Latvian hands)
• as distasteful as I find it, I have taken care to cite the Russian dissenting position clearly at the outset; the only reasonable official position--the declaration of the Russian Duma--is provided; and I have even refrained from making any POV observation that the Duma has not provided any evidence to support its position
• were there any reputable evidence for the Russian official position, it would be presented--it is their position after all and it's important to understand even if it is in a minority of one; however, I have not located any such evidence; neither has anyone responded to my open invitation for any reputable content which can be cited (not their personal interpretations of the Hague Conventions on the rules of war, for example) to be included to shed light on the Russian position; instead, all that is heard is abject consternation that the word "occupation" is an insult to Russia, etc. etc., the Russians saved Latvia from Hitler, etc. etc.--conveniently forgetting that the very occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Union was the result of Hitler and Stalin dividing up Eastern Europe between them
• as I have indicated and tagged, the article is a work in progress; unfortunately my Wikitime has been spent on more urgent matters of late for which I apologize; as well, my personal time has been severely limited over the past six to eight months; and quite frankly, I got tired of repeating this argument every few weeks with a new set of protagonists and took a Wikibreak from this issue after adding the "why occupation" section, consolidated from a umber of discussions
• now that this is potentially heading for arbitration I would welcome the opportunity to close this issue once and for all.

I repeat my request: anyone who has any reputable evidence to the contrary that the Soviet Union did not "occupy" Latvia, please present it. That does not change, however, that the Soviet presence in Latvia was illegal, that Latvia neither legally nor voluntarily "joined" the Soviet Union, that "annexation" does not terminate "occupation," or that the legal and sovereign government of Latvia continued to function de jure in exile until the reestablishment of said sovereign authority on Latvian territory, all of which make it the occupation of Latvia.

I fail to see how one can insist that presenting verified facts is "inflammatory." I would submit that vehement denial and constant POV tagging of facts is the true "inflammatory" action. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 07:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a perfect example of tenditious editing edit wars waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Wikipedia. Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and Holocaust denial, such as monuments erected to local Waffen SS troopers, desecration of WWII war monuments, and so on. Unfortunately, some people are trying to push the corresponding agenda on Wikipedia.

User:Constanz has been edit warring on this article for quite a moment now. He was blocked once for 3RR on this article, and have been accusing everyone who did not agree with him as "vandal" (see history) and dismissing their arguments as "Soviet propaganda". Obviously, asking him to read the corresponding policies would have been of little effect. He is trying to present his own opinion (since he's about the only one to contribute on the talk page) as "consensus" and apparently does not understand that while some sort of consensus is not reached, the tag has to stay as a warning for a casual reader. And by the way, content disputes are in no way vandalism.

User:Martintg is currently an obvious single purpose account (contribs) whose only purpose it to help Constanz wage his revert wars.

As for User:Vecrumba, he did not take a part in that agenda pushing. Still, I'm surprised by his statement. If he thinks that wording like "is the most persistent fabrication of Soviet propaganda" are NPOV, he should seriously reread the corresponding WP policies. What is also interesting is the fact that he could not find pre-1991 sources calling it an occupation (check the first three refs: all of them are post-1991 material). One also has to notice that slapping together two different periods like 1940-1941 and 1941-1944, thus lowering the significance of Nazi crimes, is a form of Holocaust denial that should not be tolerated on WP.

Finally, I would like to point out that any attempt by me, Irpen, or other users like User:Grant65, were boycotted by Constanz and Martintg. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find pre-1991 sources? None of those "first three" references are mine. The congressional resport is from long before 1991, I'll be glad to add as many sources through the entire period as you would like that call it an occupation. Abot the Waffen SS, Latvians (and Eastern Europeans) in general were conscripted into the Waffen SS (or joined simply to fight against the Soviets)--remember this was after the mass deportations executed by the Soviets. Your calling honoring/remembering Waffen SS as Nazi rehabilitation is simply misinformed. (The Eastern European Waffen SS were exonerated in the post-WWII trials.) As I indicated the article is in progress (and there is a Nazi occupation page--this article may be better off dealing with just the Soviet occupation). And about the Holocaust... my father-in-law was sent to warn their (Jewish) family friend to warn her... a teenager picking his way through fields of bodies reaching her house only to find her beheaded by the Nazis. Consider your words before you accuse people of Holocaust denial. You still have said nothing to indicate in any way it was not an occupation by the Soviets.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grafikm fr's statement is a perfect illustration to his own disputing style on Latvia article:

• This article is a perfect example of tenditious editing edit wars - since when is reflecting majority POV tendentious editing?
• waged by 2 or 3 Baltic nationalists to push their agenda on Wikipedia. - actually, Graf's position has only been supported by 2 or 3 revert warriors. There has been twice as many of their opponents.
• Anyone who follows political news from this region closely (or even remotely) knows that there is currently a heavy return to nationalism in these three countries, bordering sometimes on Nazism and Holocaust denial - Does this 'argument' prove that the occupation didn't take place (that's what Graf SHOULD be proving)? A straw man argument very characteristic to the dispute on talk page!
• User:Martintg is currently an obvious single purpose account whose only purpose it to help Constanz wage his revert wars. - I think this sentence would well characterise Graf's recent edits' relation to Irpen.
• And once again, the user FAILED TO CITE HIS SOURCES, WHICH COULD HINT THAT LATVIA WASN'T OCCUPIED. Why is he hiding his sources?! How is it possible for someone to pursue NPOV without citing sources? Constanz - Talk 12:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petri Krohn[edit]

There are plenty of sources that show to that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. There are also sources that show that Latvia and Latvians voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940. Until 1991 most of the worlds governments saw the incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union as legal. After 1991 this has become one of the most contested issues in international politics and modern history. Whichever of these views is more correct, the issue requires a balanced coverage in a dedicated article with a neutral point of view.

Grouping the actions of the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic together with Nazi war crimes, under a common title of "occupation", precludes any neutral writing on the subject.

The dispute here is not about whether Soviet rule in Latvia was occupation or not, but the arbitrary grouping and merging of different rules under one title of "occupation". This is a propaganda/POV pushing trick. What the creators of the article have done is like merging George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler under The Great Satan.

I do not think there is a place for an article in Wikipedia under the present title. In its present form it only serves as a tool for ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech. At best it is a POV fork of material covered in other articles. The article should be deleted. Most of the material could be moved or merged to The Museum of the Occupation of Latvia [12]. The remaining material should be moved to (if not already covered in) Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic, Occupation of Baltic Republics (another POV title), Battle of Narva - Battle of the Tannenbergstellung (1944), Courland Pocket, etc... (The first two definitely need expansion.)

And now to my personal views: The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States to deprive citizenship from their ex-soviet citizens. The view expressed in this article is the one promoted by the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia, a propaganda tool of the Latvian government. True or not, the views expressed in the article are vital for the legitimicy of Latvian policy. Given the resources of the state, there is no scarcity of printed sources supporting this views. Opponent however see the whole Latvian state as an illegal ethnocracy. I tend to agree.

I also object to the article on moral grounds. The article tries to equate the actions of the Soviet Union (and Soviet citizens in the Baltic Republics) with those of Nazi Germany. I see this as a form of Holocaust revisionism. It denies the unique nature if Nazi war crimes by equating them to real or imagined crimes of others. -- Petri Krohn 02:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This RfA and the edit war that promted it does not seem to be about the content of the article. It is about about the POV-tags; the right of opponents of the content or name to tag the article. So far I have not contributed to the article. I have only reverted the deletion of the {{POV-title}} tag and added a {{Totally-disputed-section}} (which was immediately removed). This is the reason I am included in this dispute. On this tag-issue I believe repeated removal of POV-tags is vandalism. -- Petri Krohn 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There are plenty of sources that show to that Latvia was occupied by the Soviet Union in 1940. There are also sources that show that Latvia and Latvians voluntarily joined the Soviet Union in 1940 - Why are the ”plenty of sources” NOT CITED by any of my opponents? In fact, the statement by Petri is minority POV, of a tiny minority I'd say. Today, no serious source calls the Soviet takeover, forged elections and annexation as voluntary accession to the USSR. Petri's view suits the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but not here.
• I do not think there is a place for an article in Wikipedia under the present title. In its present form it only serves as a tool for ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech. - I ask again - does the article with the same title in Britannica also serve “ethnic POV-pushing and associated hate speech”? Or perhaps it's Krohn himself who wishes to use Wikipedia as a tool to promote his own views of Baltics (like here: [13])?
• The heart of the matter here is the Nuremberg style denaturalization laws and the right of the newly independent Baltic States... and: illegal ethnocracy - well, this part of Petri's argumentation really shows, that HE is using this dispute as a tool to promote his views about the Baltics. He seems to claim here that the USSR annexed the states in 1940, because the Baltic states passed “Nurember style laws” in 1990s ! Compare Petri Krohn's other contributions on the topic: see that you too have been harassed by the "ethnofacist" POV pushers”. Very strong statements (even if we exclude namecalling) by a user whose dispute merely relies on his own analysis of the events!Constanz - Talk 08:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am completely mystified by Petri Krohn's statement. Latvia did not join the U.S.S.R. voluntarily, that was the action of a puppet government "elected" where the results of the "election" were announced in Moscow before the election ended. (Virtually) none of the world's governments saw the incorporation of the Baltic States in the Soviet Union as "legal." I don't know whether Mr. Krohn is grossly misinformed or simply lying. A "contested issue"? Only by those pushing the neo-Soviet POV, I'm afraid.
• Latvia deprive people of citizenship? I regret to inform Mr. Krohn that a majority of Latvia's ethnic Russians are citizens. Hardly an ethnocracy. When Russian journalists abroad held their world convention in Latvia some years back, planning to expose Latvia's anti-Russian human rights "crimes," even representatives of the Duma confessed things were not as they had been portrayed. They all enjoyed their outing in Jūrmala and then left for home.
• Where have I denied the Holocaust? Come now! Is Mr. Krohn saying that there cannot be an accounting of those deported to their deaths by the Soviet Union? In an action already planned before the U.S.S.R. invaded the Baltics? And the Museum of the Occupation of Latvia is "POV"? What matters is what is true and proven by Soviet documents. The "occupation" is not some after-the-fact contrivance, as he and others are stating.
• The only attempt to compare or equate evils is being made by those who wish to push their POV that Latvia is a Russophobic anti-Semitic Nazi-rehabilitating super-ethno-nationalist neo-fascist state. I find the suggestion that I am pushing Holocaust revisionism utterly offensive, both on moral and personal grounds.
• Again, I invite Mr. Krohn and anyone else to actually produce the sources they speak of that support their assertions Latvia was not occupied.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/4/0/0)[edit]

• Decline. Content dispute. Paul August ☎ 19:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject; agree that this is a content dispute and not ripe for arbcom. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Accept to investigate bad behavior (not content.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Reject. What they said. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. A glance at the article's history is proof enough that there is more than a content dispute here. Accept to look at conduct problems like edit warring and incivility (accusations of vandalism). Dmcdevit·t 01:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Dmcdevit, in order to examine the conduct issues surrounding the case. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. If there is a conduct issue, the disputants may bring a case addressing it alone if they wish. Otherwise, the matter as presently framed is primarily a content dispute outside our remit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Accept per Dmcdevit and reading the actual article and talk history - this complaint doesn't go into it, but it doesn't look acceptable to me. We don't have to stick within the lines drawn by the complaint, if we don't want to. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to look at editor conduct. Charles Matthews 11:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Still essentially a content dispute, if a heated one; I'd prefer it if there was some evidence of a failed attempt at mediation before hearing this. Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to examine user conduct that is keeping the content dispute from being resolved. FloNight 16:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per Kirill. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. To look into behaviour, not the content issues. - SimonP 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, though it really should go without saying that obviously we won't be looking at content issues. James F. (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Assume good faith[edit]

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

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy[edit]

2) 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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view[edit]

3) Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives that have been published by a reliable source. 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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability and sourcing[edit]

4) 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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

5) Original research is prohibited. This includes a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; an argument is permissible only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the specific topic of the article.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article probation[edit]

6) 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.

Passed 7 to 1 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) The dispute revolves around the title, scope, and content of the Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 article; these have been the subject of extensive and heated debate, which has failed to produce an outcome acceptable to all of the editors involved. Among other issues, the debate has focused around two related questions: whether the Soviet presence in Latvia was an occupation, and whether—regardless of the answer to the first question—the article's current title and scope are appropriately chosen.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tags[edit]

2) A number of parties—including Advocatus diaboli, Constanz, Ghirlandajo, Grafikm_fr, Petri Krohn, Lysy, Irpen, and Martintg—have engaged in a revert war over the presence of the {{POV-title}} and {{noncompliant}} tags on the article.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor behavior[edit]

3) A number of the parties to the dispute, including Grafikm_fr ([14], [15]), Constanz ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), Advocatus diaboli ([21], [22]), Martintg ([23]), Lysy ([24]), and Petri Krohn ([25], [26]) have aggravated it by some form of poor behavior, such as engaging in personal attacks, assuming bad faith of the other editors involved, making attacks and accusations along national lines, or soapboxing.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Parties admonished[edit]

1) The parties named above as having acted poorly in this dispute are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article probation[edit]

Rescinded by motion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2.1) The article at the locus of this dispute is placed on probation. Any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, incivilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate.

Passed 7 to 1 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion on 02:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Mediation[edit]

3) The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article content issues that may still be outstanding.

Passed 8 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article probation revocation (February 2022)[edit]

Remedy 2.1 of the Occupation of Latvia case ("Article probation") is rescinded.

Passed 11 to 0 by motion on 02:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing jurisdiction[edit]

1) If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive.

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.