Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006

Positions of mikkalai

Item 1 (parties): deserves elaboration.

What kind of elaboration? In your edit [1] you told that the ban of parties is a serious and notable thing, but need refference. Here is the refference (page 25-27).--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Item 2 (arrest): irrelevant (it was not "before referendum" it was "long before", and not only Dignitas were arrested).

The arrest was not "long before" the refferendum, it was only one month before. See this refference.--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Item 3: whoever these Helsinki are, proofless accusations have no place in wikipedia: it is not a gossip board.

`'mikkanarxi 06:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is your opinion that the accusation are proofless. Moldovan Helsinki Comitee is a respectable organisation with international recognition which was founded in Tiraspol in 1990. Its leader, Ştefan Urîtu, has a good knowledge about Transnistria. I note that Moldovan Helsinki Comitee opinion is not a singular one, OSCE also told that referendum results in Transnistria were falsified. "Electoral tourism" is a plausible way of falsification, as many people in Transnistria have more than one ID document (Moldovan passport, Ukrainian passport, Russian passport, Old Soviet passport) and is easy for anybody to vote at different polling station, at each one with a different ID, especially when you know that authorities are not interested to find a fraud. Is very difficult for a foreign observer to find such fraud, especially because, as result of lacking of a political party which support unification with Moldova, election comitees in each polling station will be composed only by persons who support the regime and are not interested to show frauds. Foreign observers were mainly from CIS and Russia, organisations with pro-Russian biases which can not be considered neutral observers. (Referendum was about Transnistria joining Russia). I add that the lack of verification about who can vote in Transnistrian elections was an old issue showed by MHCHR (see page 28), but Transnistrian authorities did nothing to solve it.--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of my rebuttals to the above (MariusM is wrong, and he is being misleading, and I will be glad to explain why) will basically repeat what is on Talk:Transnistrian referendum, 2006. How do we go about this? Should we ask the mediator to take control at this point, or? - Mauco 22:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder of what one of involved part in this mediation, Russian user:int19h, told in the talk page of article: With all due respect, it is not our job to determine what the truth is in this case - that would be original research, a no-no. Our job is to accurately record all claims made by all involved sides, however POV they may be, and reference them. In case of HCHRM, we certainly have to include their claims in the article; however, if there is any relevant information on how they might be not impartial in this case, and there are sources for it, they can be included as well (and, of course, the same goes for all other observing parties). If they were not accredited observers, and there is a source that shows it, by all means, put that in. -- int19h 19:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC) --MariusM 15:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and here is the diff for that post of mine. And Mauco did agree with me on that, but he objected to the prominence given to HCHRM claims in the article, considering their fringe nature (i.e. the fact that they were the only ones to claim any significant violations, and that they did not offer evidence for their claims). -- int19h 17:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Positions of MariusM

I am for inclusion of all 3 sentences (as in current article) as all 3 sentences are sourced. Anything else will mean blanking relevant information.--MariusM 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding aditional issue 2 which I added today as result of new dispute with Mauco: current article tell that media climate is restrictive on both sides of Dniester (that mean both in Transnistria and in Moldova, from which Transnistria want to separate), based on an OSCE report. However, the report states, regarding the government of the Republic of Moldova [2]: "In the last few years, the Mission has noted several cases when transmissions by broadcasters critical of the Moldovan government were blocked. Some of these issues, relating to First Romanian TV, TV Romania 2, Vocea Basarabia, Antena-C and Euro-TV Chisinau, were subsequently solved, but concerns remained". All those situations regard pro-Romanian TVs. First Romanian TV and TV Romania 2 are state-owned Romanian television chanells. Vocea Basarabiei, Antena-C and Euro TV are Romanian language chanells with pro-Romanian attitude. This is why I want to include a mention about the fact that those chanells which were persecuted were pro-Romanian chanells. None of those TV chanells are favourable to Transnistrian separatism. Situation is the same in Transnistria and rest of Moldova: the pro-Romanian side face restrictions and pro-Russian side is encouraged by government, while the degree of restriction is different. However, I feel that a good solution is to concentrate only about media climate in Transnistria, as the subject of our article is "Transnistrian referendum, 2006", and to take out comments about media climate in the rest of Moldova, as irrelevant. I consider irrelevant those informations about Moldova as at the time of referendum the mentioned restriction were not anymore effective, it was an old issue. Removing such irrelevant information is the best solution, however, if Mauco insist on inclusion we should give the full picture about who was the subject of restrictions.--MariusM 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictive media is already mentioned in the article. OSCE (and there are other sources, too) state that both sides are at it: Moldova and Transnistria are both restrictive. For more details, you can add the degrees etc etc into the Media in Transnistria article which deals with the media climate. This is the referendum article, so don't content-fork. Besides, the recent seminar organized by the British Embassy in Chisinau does not agree with you: They say that media in Transnistria is a lot freer than what most people think.[3] - Mauco 20:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is in Russian language source and I don't speak Russian. If the seminar was organised by British Embassy, why there is no English language source?--MariusM 21:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How you want to include in Media in Transnistria problems of media outside Transnistria? This is the problem: is relevant the media climate outside Transnistria for the article "Transnistrian referendum, 2006"? Do you agree that is not relevant, only the media climate inside Transnistria is relevant?--MariusM 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added today a 3rd aditional issue in the mediation as I wanted to include in the article information about previous statements of Viktor Alksnis regarding Transnistria and I was reverted by Mauco [4], with the explanation that is not allowed to change this article as mediation is still in progress. Alksniss is quoted in the article as a witness that referendum was held in democratic conditions and I believe previous statement by him, that Transnistria is the base from where the restoration of Soviet Union will begin, is relevant to show the bias of Alksnis and allow Wikipedia readers to apreciate themselves the degree in which Alksnis' statements are reliable. Source: John Mackinlay and Peter Cross (editors), Regional Peacekeepers: The Paradox of Russian Peacekeeping, United Nations University Press, 2003, ISBN 92-808-1079-0 p. 137. As long as this issue was not part of the mediation I don't understand why I was reverted. I add now this issue on this mediation to have all disputes regarding the article solved when mediation is finished.--MariusM 23:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of activity in the mediation

I stated my positions and answered to all replies of others, but it seems that those who oppose my view simply don't have any arguments except their desire to hide problems that exist in Transnistria. They didn't explained their position. However, with Mauco at least, I had a lot of other disputes in other articles (he even declared himself once "disgusted through the bones" by me [5]), but not in this mediation. I think the conclusion should be that the claims of HCHRM should stay in the article (as they remained during this entire period).--MariusM 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the claims by the HCHRM are completely unsupported and too fantastic to be taken seriously. They are fabricated, have no credible source confirming them, and lack any basis in reality. This was what brought the article to mediation in the first place. The only reason that the article has remained stable in its current highly-POV biased state is because some of us have refrained from correcting it in the meantime, out of respect for the ongoing mediation process. - Mauco 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fabricated are the results of referendum. Excepting Russia, international community don't recognized the results of referendum. Russia is an interested part, as the referendum was about Transnistria joining Russia - is the game of Russian expansionism (which is not bringing advantages for Russian people, I believe, but Putin thinks otherwise). Previously Mauco agreed to include HCHRM claims [6], objecting only about the proeminence of those claims. I don't agree with Mauco that HCHRM are exceptional claims. Exceptional claims are those which pretend that in Transnistria vote is free and fair.--MariusM 09:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pernambuco's position

I can see that mediation is still needed. Pernambuco 12:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pernambuco, you are part of this dispute, you should state your position.--MariusM 00:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, can you not read, I have already said my position, and my position is that you can not close the mediation, I can see that it is still needed, why, because I can see that you do not agree with Mauco and that Mauco do not agree with you, it is very simple. Pernambuco 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should state your position regarding the 4 issues which are the subject of this mediation, not about me or Mauco. I remind the 4 issues:

Should we include in the article the fact that: "No political party in Transnistria ask for reunification with the Republic of Moldova. Previously, Transnistrian Supreme Court banned political organisations on the ground that they are "against the state", wanting reunification with Moldova[1]".
Should we include in the article the fact that: "Before the referendum, 4 members of pro-moldovan NGO "Dignitas" from Slobozia were arrested by Transistrian Special Forces, but were released after few days in custody, no charges being made against them [2]".
Should we include in the article the claim of HCHRM (Moldovan Helsinki Commitee) that "electoral tourism" took place during Transnistrian referendum?
Should we mention in the article the media climate in the rest of Moldova? If yes, should be given details about which media was subject of persecution?

Remember you are not a mediator here, you are only a part of the dispute.--MariusM 10:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask me, why do you not ask anyone else, has the mediation started, and are you the man who is in charge of it, or what? where is the mediator, does he agree with everything that you are doing, you are not the person who owns wikipedia Pernambuco 14:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]