Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was a joint write of Fred-Chess , BigAdamsky and mikka. Filed 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Kven users

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

On the article Kven, one user has been adding lots of material that is biased in favour of a certain understanding of the connection between the contemporary Kven people and peoples and places of the past (most notably the Varangians). The user has advanced claims that the Kvens are the indigenous people of Lapland and that Finns migrated to North America in ancient times (that article has been deleted by User:Mikkalai). It is assumed beyong reasonable doubt that this one user has been using numerous sockpuppets in the ensuing edit warring and discussions during the winter months of 2005-2006. Other users have difficulties in understanding the topic on the expert level enough to dispute, but agree that the user is not editing or behaving correctly. It has been difficult to pinpoint the flaws in the reasoning of the user in question, but when a different user (also anonymous) started to comment, it became somewhat clearer in which direction the POV was laid. The POV is primarily derived from unverifiable claims relating the the origins of the ethnic group.

[edit] Description

After having arrived to Wikipedia in November 2005 (or so) the user made a long article of Kven, Varangians and other articles. He has been fierce in protecting his POV. He has been using many sockpuppets to confuse his identity.

Since March 2006 another user has been systematically questioning, countering and challenging the claims and reasoning of the "Kven" user.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. User:Mikkalai/arkven#Alphabetic list for a list of the user's sock puppets
  2. [1] User vandalizing user:Fred chessplayer
  3. [2] and [3] user vandalizing user:Big Adamsky
  4. [4] a different user expresses his own new discontent against the claims of Kven Users.
  5. [5] Opinion of other anonymous user of the Kven User
  6. Talk:Kven. Most entries clearly show how Kven User has been abusing talk pages making his reasoning very hard to follow.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Ownership
  2. Wikipedia:NPOV
  3. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  4. Wikipedia:POINT
  5. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks
  6. WP:TROLL

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. `'mikka (t) 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) The "kven" user (we don't know how to address to him; that's the part of the problem) seems to disregard many wikipedia ways, being entrenched in his POV. I stumbled upon this article whan an anon contrib started added very non-traditional claims to articles related to Ancient Rus. When questioned in talk:Kven, he responded with lengthy essays on the kven topic rather than addressing specific wikipedia requirements to provide support for particular claims. Here is an example how hard to talk to this person:
    <begin quote>
    The key question is: How the "government site" calls them: Finns or Kvens? We already know people lived before Jesus Christ. mikka (t) 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    By now it should be clear to mikka (t) as well that for instance the multiple known Viking Age written texts called the people in question Kvens, and that the people in question from the Viking Age are commonly called Kvens all over in history books and elsewhere (in Finnish kainulainen - kainulaiset in plural), and their land was called Kvenland (Kainuunmaa and Kainuu in Finnish). Compare: Kainuunjoki (in Northern Sweden) - i.e. the Kvenland River, or River Kalix in Swedish.
    As mikka (t) already was convinced and in many ways made clear about that fact (variety of sources and info were provided, and despite of pleas and inquiries no one opposed the info with any disagreeing sources), why in the world then has he still in recent days been repetedly converting the text to a totally new unfouded claim ("16th century"), made purposely up in a conspiracy by Chess and Adamsky. mikka (t) is contradicting his own criterias and earlier comments. Now, who is playing "pokemon" ? -- S.T. March 9, 2006, 19:56
    Unfortunately, it is not at all "clear". I asked a simple question: are they called "kven" at the governement site? "yes" or "no" please. mikka (t) 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
    Nowadays prehistoric sites are not attributed to any modern ethnic categories.
    ([6])
    <end quote>
    The above was an example of another major problem: the "kven" editor doesn't want to sign his talks in a regular way despite multiple requests.
    Since I am not an expert in things finnic, initially I merely deleted some most fantastic claims. At the same time I posted requests at all scandinavian wikipedians message boards to help with the article. Unfortunately the article seem to be of little interest to wider community.
    I'd like for someone to step in and convince this person to work out the differences in a structured, piecewise way. Since I am involved in this article for quite a long time, I cannot be a moderator or facilitator, or else, although I have absolutely no opinions on the subject per se. It is only the frivolity of its treatment by "kven" user that bothers me. `'mikka (t) 18:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 22:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Lukas (T.|@) 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC) (having once tried to tidy up the related Kven language article and watched the Kven situation from the distance)


[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.


This page is merely a defence startegy of the users Fred-Chess and mikka, who were first accused of misbehavior, prior to this counter claims' page being launched by them. The first review request regarding their wrong doings and unwaranted actions was issued on the Administrators' page on April 26, 2006. That review request was reposted in the following format later (also prior for this page being launched).

Below, please also view just a couple of other comments reflecting the unwaranted actions and behavior of the users Fred-Chess. The two other users mentioned on this page (one uses various user names), who symphatize with the two above, have also acted against the Wikipedia policies. That can be proven, per request:

Art Dominique talk, May 9, 2006 - 17:24


[edit] Users Fred-Chess and mikka (t) are participating in improper behavior in Wikipedia the following ways

It appears that I keep being unfairly blocked from editing anything in the Wikipedia with my registered user name, Art Dominique, due to ill-fated actions taken by mikka (t), in reference to the Wikipedia's Kven article. The talk pages reveal that the user mikka (t) has been engouraged to his actions by the user Fred-Chess, apparently for the following reasons:

The user Splashtalk unsprotected the Kven article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kven - with a history notation "22:32, 22 March 2006 Splash (unsprot: weird reason to protect and it's been long enough anywa)", after the article had been sprotected by user Fred-Chess, whose reasoning for his action indeed was very, very strange.

Despite of many pleas for him to do so, the above mentioned user with "weird reasoning" - Fred-Chess - has not provided sources for his claims in the Wikipedia's Kven text or on its discussion page. His claims presented are not - to our knowledge - supported by known historians and/or other scientists. Instead, the views presented are contradicting those of known historians and other specialists on the related fields, as has been proven on the Kven discussion page.

On the other hand, the users opposing the views of Fred-Chess have provided their own distinguished sources on another Kven text page version and the Kven discussion page as well. However, without presenting sources of their own and without discussing their claims, Fred-Chess and mikka (t) keep reverting the Kven text into a text version by Fred-Chess, which includes his unfounded claims, not supported by science. Furthermore, the sources offered on the bottom of that text version do not agree with the views/claims presented. The given sources have been carried on from the contributes of other editors. Thus, this is a clear case of misrepresentation.

Below are just a couple of examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version by Fred chessplayer, which the user mikka (t) appears to have blocked several other users from correcting, or from reverting to a version with valid credited sources and accurate matching information, approved by historians. The following exact quotes are from the currently standing Fred chessplayer's Kven text. The quotes of Fred chessplayer's claims are followed by correct information (the sources offered in Fred chessplayer's own text version agree with this correct information, but not with the claims of Fred-Chess):


1. "Kvens (alternate spellings: Cwen, Kven, Kvæn, Kveeni, Quen) were a historical group of people that lived in the coastal areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, part of today's Finland."

There is a wide consensus among historians, that large areas of today's Northern Sweden, particularly the areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, were also part of the historic Kvenland.
Thus, the historic Kvenland areas are not only a "part of today's Finland", but also a part of today's Sweden, and - according to some historians - also a part of today's Norway, and even a part of today's extreme Northwestern Russia.


2. "Possibly, Kvens referred to all Finnish people. (Suomen historia (History of Finland), page 27, Jouko Vahtola, Professor of Finnish and Scandinavian history. )."

On the above mentioned page, Professor Vahtola does not claim such a thing. He only says that in 870 AD the "Kven" reference made by the Norwegian explorer "Othar" was - perhaps - meant to refer to Finns in general. On this page, he is not discussing any of the other historic references to Kvens, and their nature and/or meaning.
Professor Vahtola himself indeed has - in his books - made it clear that Kvens are a separate group within the Finnish/Finnic people, and that the term "Kven" - used for instance in various historic texts - has usually not referred to the Finnish people in general, but rather to a special historic group/tribe of people. There is a wide consensus about this matter among historians.


3."In literature, the first known occurrence of the Kven in the Account of the Viking Othere, a chronicle in the time of King Alfred the Great in the 9th century AD."

According to the distinguished Kven expert, the Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku, the first known reference to the Kven people in literature was made by the Roman historian Tacitus, Gaius Cornelius in Germania in 98 AD.


4."Before the 8th century there are scarcely any remains of the Kvens."

On the contrary: The archaeological evidence of agricultural settlement on the Finnish side of the Gulf of Bothnia is strong before the 9th century, and it gets weaker as the Viking Age advances"


Some of the less important peaces of information in the currently standing Kven text version is correct, thanks to the contributions by users other than Fred-Chess or mikka (t). Much of the current text, however, is not correctly reflecting the opinions of the utmost experts of the Scandinavian and Finnish history, nor does the currently presented information match the views of the sources and references offered on the current Kven page.

On the other hand, the text version of "16:20, 18 April 2006 Ppt" provides valid information with matching distinguished sources and references, including a couple of exact quotes of the wordings by known Kven experts, etc.

Administrators, please review the actions and behavior of mikka (t) (his Kven and Varangian text reverts are not explained, sources are not provided, clean Varangian discussion comments are deleted by him, etc.). Please, also review the behavior of Fred-Chess (he forces false info to Wikipedia's Kven page, providing no sources and no responses to complaints). Please remove blocks orchestrated by these two users against the under-signer. The blocks are placed under the name of mikka (t).

The under-signer is not an "anonymous" user, and must not be mixed up with any other users, regardless of what computers they might have used. As mikka (t) has been unable to provide any evidence of any wrong doing by me, I kindly ask for someone to please unblock me immediately !

I hereby also request for mikka (t) and Fred-Chess to be revoked their rights to block Wikipedia users' editing privileges, based on the evidence and reasons shown on this page and for instance on the two pages provided below. The user mikka (t) must not be allowed to continue blocking innocent registered Wikipedia users. Both users must be stopped of reverting to false infromation, as they decline requests for sources, reasoning and answers to complaints:


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kven - The Kven discussion page --> neither of the two provides sources, nor discusses their reverts, nor answers to complaints about their actions.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Varangians - The Varangian discussion page --> mikka (t)' delets discussion texts of other users / does not explain his reverts.


Art Dominique talk, May 2, 2006 - 05:16

(Ps.: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)


--> the following report by me was also posted to the Administrators' page. It followed the above report on that page. It appears that the users mikka (t) and Ghirlandajo cooperate in actions that fight against the policies of Wikipedia. The two may even be the one and the same user.

Only days ago mikka deleted our complaint regarding Ghirlandajo, who shortly before that had deleted a complaint about himself from the Administrators' page. Both users have deleted posts from the Wikipedia's Varangian article, which represented a sourced Finnish view point about the origins of the Varangians. Both have also deleted related comments from the discussion page from the Varangian article.

Art Dominique talk, May 9, 2006 - 17:24


[edit] User Ghirlandajo is deleting important comments of valid concerns from this page

On this administrators' page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=history we can see that user Ghirlandajo deleted an important comment of valid concerns ("08:02, 4 May 2006 Ghirlandajo") immediately after it had been posted for the administrators to review by Digi Wiki ("07:58, 4 May 2006 Digi Wiki").

That article reveals serious wrong doings by two Wikipedia users, similar to the wrong doings which user Ghirlandajo himself has been caught of participating in at Wikipedia's Varangian page.

For instance, at the Varangian article history page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varangians&limit=100&action=history we can see that with the foot note "18:03, 3 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (rm the latest attack by Kvenites)" the user Ghirlandajo deleted referenced contributons made by another user to Wikipedia only moments before. The user Ghirlandajo did not provide reasons for his action.

The user Ghirlandajo has continued these type of radical actions, without reasoning or any conversation. Today he did it on this administrators' page. Thus, can someone now put an end to his ilfated tactics and behavior which do not belong to Wikipedia. While conducting his own delete/revert strategies, the user Ghirlandajo is not providing sources or reasons for his actions, nor does he engage in any conversation regarding his deletes of the referenced and sourced information provided by others.

Another example: At the Varangian article's talk page's history at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&limit=250&action=history the user Ghirlandajo deleted a discussion comment on March 15, 2006, with the following history page marking: "15:13, 15 March 2006 Ghirlandajo (Wikipedia is not a dump for copyrighted material)".

That can only be considered vandalism by Ghirlandajo, because althoug quotes were used in the discussion comment of the other Wikipedia user Drow Ssap, no copyrighted material was used without permission. On the top of Drow Ssap's comment which the user Ghirlandajo deleted, it was clearly stated that a permission had been granted for use of the quoted text. To confirm please check the page in question at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Varangians&diff=43900059&oldid=43889395.

Administrators, based on the information provided above, please proceed to place the proper sanctions against the user Ghirlandajo !


Art Dominique talk, May 4, 14:22, 2006

Ps. 1: In order to be able to sign in safely and to post this message, I have had to register a new user name, Digi Wiki, because computers used to enter Wikipedia by Art Dominique talk have become automatically blocked (including discussion pages), due to the wrongful actions taken by mikka (t).)

Ps. 2: As the history page shows, this important comment was just deleted from here moments ago, with the following history record: "23:43, 4 May 2006 Mikkalai"


- - This page was carried here by Art Dominique talk on May 9, 2006 - 17:24 - -


[edit] Further proof of Wikipedia abuse by user mikka (t)

Your tactics fight against the Wikipedia policies, mikka (t). Here is a proof of how you mix me up with a friend of yours, unpurposely, or perhaps intentionally, to further confuse things or to prove me wrong. No wonder things seem confusing to some:
As I've stayted, I had to sign in with a new user name yesterday, due to your blocking. Any computer where Art Dominique currently signs into Wikipedia, becomes totally blocked of any Wikipedia editing. Thus, after trying to enter Wikipedia by my normal user name today, the computer became fully blocked from editing Wikipedia by any user name. Therefore, I currrently cannot respond to your accusations anywhere else but on the user page, i.e. here. I will therefore have to stay put and enjoy the sunny outdoors for the time being.
Just for the starters let me state, that yours and your partners' accusations are false and foundless. For instance, in the beginning of your Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC page you discuss the government site reference at the Kven talk page. In the past you had asked, where that particular site talks about Kvens. I ask you, what in the world are you after there ? I was merely answering to a related questioning of the Finnic/Finnish people and the prehistoric burial sites, etc.
I did not claim that the site talks about Kvens, especially not by that term. That sort of claim was not made by me. Thus, you are merely confusing elements of the conversation topics that were taking place at that very stage. Unfortunately, somewhat unrelated claims, inquiries and/or questions of your partners' had to be responded to, and not everything in the comments therefore necessarily and/or provenly was directly material which - as such - could be used at the Kven text page itself.
Your attempt seems to be to make it look as if I am hard to talk to, because - according to you - my responses are hard to understand and because I don't sign my messages. Do I read you right ? As an example of this behavior/style of mine you offer the above mentioned government site reference commentating of yours from the Kven talk page, which is followed by a confusing and unsigned comment by someone. By the first look, it may appear - to an outsider - to be written by me, perhaps, and you appear to make it seem as if this sentence indeed was written by me:
"Nowadays prehistoric sites are not attributed to any modern ethnic categories."
However, the fact is, that the above sentence was written by your partner, 130.234.75.181, who uses various IP addresses, signing his comments with them. Furthermore, he sometimes does not sign his comments at all, and neither does he give the date nor the time of the posting of his comments. You are now purposely or unporposely confusing this friend of yours (your friendly cooperation is revealed by the talk page comments and compliments to him by you) with me. The following history page shows that the above sentence was made by this friend of yours, and not by me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kven&diff=43573659&oldid=43176785
The comments of this badly behaving friend of yours are also used against me at the following "request for comment" page of yours (here he has been referenced as two separate individuals): Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC
That particular user has admitted for instance to misquotations and bad language use in Wikipedia at the Kven talk page, Talk:Kven. There he has also been proven to having used misrepresentations, by for instance claiming that someone has proposed that the early forefathers of the (historic) Kvens spoke Finnish. There he has also been proven to having offered as a source of information a text, which he at a later stage admits to having written himself. All this problematic behavior of this user can be viewed at the Talk:Kven page. Why are you not blocking this badly behaving user, who - on top of all - refuses to provide sources, as the most recent Kven talk page comments reveal.
This user in question has used for instance the following user names (at the Talk:Kven page he also has admitted to using a couple of different user names):
130.234.75.181
130.234.75.167
130.234.75.183
217.30.179.130
When the above partner of yours often does not sign his comments at all, and when he often also leaves out the date and the time from his comments, it indeed can be confusing. He even confused you, unless you purposely used him as an example of my behavior. Now, who really is trying to confuse things ?
Art Dominique talk, May 9, 2006 - 17:24


[edit] Not correct: The sources have been given, user mikka

However, as the Talk:Kven page reveals, user Fred-Chess has not responded to the pleas for sources. He refuses to give even a source for his ridiculous claim that the Kvens only inhabited areas that a part of today's Finland. Historians on a wide scale claim differently, Swedish ones including. Fred Chess says: "..., part of today's Finland. If he studied history, he knows that the areas on today's Swedish side were "Bothnian" areas as well (please, see old maps, for instance), and the Kvens inhabited areas that are part of today's Northern Sweden. How many times have we asked for a source from him for his counter claim (Pls., see the Talk:Kven page) !

My sources have included Vahtola, Julku, Zetterberg, Tiitta, etc., as well as others listed on the Kven article and its talk page (not only Julku, as your Finnish friend claims). More sources - many, new and those from the past - can be given. So, your concern is not valid.

However, Julku represents highly valued view. He correctly cinsiders the first reference to the Kven people in literature the one from 98 AD. I've provided that source. Where is the source for the counter claim ? Even the Finnish fellow with multiple IP addresses - the one above - has declined pleas for sources, except for Mikko Häme.

Art Dominique talk, May 9, 2006 - 17:24


[edit] Where is the evidence for you accusations ?? + You contradict yourself, Mikka !

The Kven article as well as its talk page at Talk:Kven clearly show the contrary about the providing of details, sources and discussion, lack of which you were complaining about: You yourself do not appear to have a single source or reference brought to the Kven text. If you disagree, we hereby suggest for you to show evidence of you having provided a single source for the Kven article, please. The users opposing the views sponsored by you are totally different in this respect. Their multiple sources can be found from the Kven article and its talk page.
The talk pages reveal, that prior to you taking the ill-fated blocking action now under review, you discussed the matter with User:Fred chessplayer. With him we have continued having exactly the same above problem. Despite of numerous pleas for him to provide sources for his claims, he has declined to do that. A quick look at Talk:Kven clearly shows that. This is the reason why we have come to dispute your actions. There really is no reason or bases for you to take such action ! The valid and correct information - backed by credited sources - ought to be left standing - naturally, do you not agree ? That is the most important matter here.
You said the following: "The multiuser in Kven article did not violate wikipolicies that warrant blocking. Sockpuppetry is strongly frowned upon, but not totally forbidden, see wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Of course, Checkuser request is a good idea, just in case, but blocking is not warranted so far. mikka (t) 20:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)".
There is no evidence of any wrong doing by me, unless the few reverts to the correctly referenced text are seen as such. Why do you want to set yourself above the three revert rule, especially when you have not provided any sources at all ?
In the above section, "Evidence of disputed behavior", you folks have listed under the numbers 4. and 5. opinions which you make look as if they come from two fifferent people. However, those are comments from the one and the same user, who has admitted to wrong doings at the Kven user page. He uses for instance the following user names:
130.234.75.181
130.234.75.167
130.234.75.183
217.30.179.130
User Mikka: You have now admitted of having next to no knowledge about the Kvens. Still, you have kept reverting the Kven text to un-sourced and false information. Above, you also admit to having deleted text(s), such as the one having to do with the recent DNA discoveries from USA, which appear to refute the discovery of the Americas. Why ? Just because you did not know about this prior to this ? The text was well referenced and full of interesting and valid information, also information related to Kvens. For instance, - amazingly (but not surprisingly to me) - the diabetes causes found in Mexico match the ones from Ostro-Bothnia in Finland.
Art Dominique talk, May 9, 2006 - 17:24


[edit] Responding to the Kven language issue to mikka (t)

mikka (t), I fully agree with you about there not being need for a Kven language paragraph in the Kven article now (in either version), as there is the Kven language article separately. However, earlier the Kven language article was lacking much, after being played with by various users.
Shortly After making corrections to the Kven language article (only days ago), I was not able go back to delete the similar paragraph from the Kven text, due to your blocking action.
Art Dominique (t), May 9, 2006, 18:32


[edit] User 217.30.179.130 plays against Wikipedia's rules

User 217.30.179.130, you stated: "Somehow it seems to me that is bickering is not making any progress. We should start to wotk out towards a compromise."

Answer: There is no compromising with lies and|or any other sort of foul play in Wikipedia, as there is not with terrorists in the world politics. When you were earlier accused - also proven - of foul play, you admitted guilt. Before that, you were proven of having offered misquotations, full with quotation marks. Faced with the clear provided evidence, you - importantly - admitted guilt.

When you visibly can be seen - perhaps - to have finished these sort of ugly habits, which fight against the nature and rules of Wikipedia, we can stop bringing these serious problems -having to do with you behavior - into daylight, in the related talk pages.

Now, it seem quite obvious, that these tactics of yours - including also lieing, it appears - are a part of your standard methods in your pushing of your personal views as facts and as a source of information for the Wikipedia community. For instance, recently you offered a certain text as a source. Later you admitted of being the author of that particular text, to a large extend anyway.

When you claim that a certain historian, for example, sees things a certain way, we simply cannot take you seriously, in the light of all that we've had to face with you. Thus, for you to tell us to read such and such book simply is not a good enough response. That is precisely why we have asked for you to give the name of the source, the page number and the exact quote, where such and such person presents these views, which you claim they do. What part of this procedure cannot you understand ? The burdon of proof is in your side, when you make these type of claims.

You generalize falsely, you stretch the truth, you set words in peoples' mouths, you offer misrepresentations and misquotations. The latter mentioned ways of yours have been proven before on the Kven talk page, although in one case - for instance - you simply explained having misunderstood someone having claimed for the forefathers of the Kvens having spoken a certain language. Backed by this "misunderstanding" of yours, you proceeded in offering a long lecture about linguistics, ethnicity, etc. How far can you stretch the definition of misunderstanding ? What may or may not you as easily "misunderstand" in your Kven history related views ?

This indeed appears to be one the biggest differences between our approaches. I've categorically proceeded by for instance offering exact quotes from the texts written by e.g. the Professors Kyösti Julku, Allan Tiitta, Seppo Zetteberg and Jouko Vahtola, etc., as well as Othar and other authors of the Viking Age, including quotes from the Viking Age sagas and other historic texts, etc. In case of all the modern time historians, and their related sources offered, the names of their works have been given in detail, also the publishing years of the works in question, and the page numbers of each of the quotes used. When translations have been used, that too is usually clearly indicated, even in the talk page texts.

I do not recall you, or the users Fred-Chess, mikka (t) or Big Adamsky having so far offered a single quote from even one modern time historian, as a source for claims made in the Wikipedia's Kven text, or even on its talk page. However, if there is such a case, could we please now receive the exact quote and the place where the quote was presented.

The above makes it even harder to understand, why the Wikipedia users who have repeatedly asked for the above named users to come up with sources - even a single one - for their highly disputable claims, have now themselves been unfairly blocked by the above named user mikka (t).

A complaint of the methods of the users Fred-Chess and mikka (t) was placed on the Administrators' page, first on April 26, 2006, after which the users in question rose up to their defense by setting up a counter attack page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC.

Incredibly, for their defense, the two accused users brought the above named Big Adamsky and you. Apparently, your attempt to hide your trail of continuous foul play has led you to use several Wikipedia user accounts. Two comments of yours (4. and 5.), used for the defense of the accused Wikipedia users, Fred-Chess and mikka (t), on this defense page of theirs, were written from two different user accounts of yours. They are presented as if they have come from two different users. Your user accounts include at least the following:


130.234.75.181
130.234.75.167
130.234.75.183
217.30.179.130


Prior to this, you've been caught of having used exceptionally bad language in Wikipedia, including provably setting women's private parts in a sentence where they do not belong. Now, to top it all, you've made a very serious claim of I having lied and having used "misquoting again and again". If you now fail to prove this latest claim of yours, by providing the exact misquotions you claim me of having done (this time correct ones, please - not changed or distorted), will we now have your permission to begin calling you a lier ?

I have not misquoted you or anyone else. Perhaps, in your opinion, there may have been a misinterpretation. For such misinterpretation you can perhaps - at least in part - blame yourself, because you often appear to contradict yourself. Here's yet another example:


1. "During 800 - 1100 AD archaeological materials in the so-called Kvenland are very limited: only a handful of burials, some settlement sites, somes hoards and stray-finds. This is verified in the books by Torsten Edgren and Matti Huurre mentioned in the articles. The situation has not changed much after the 1960´s when Ella Kivikoski wrote the Prehistory of Finland, the only standard text of Finnish prehistory available in English."

2. "Finally, some direct citations from the Finnish Wikipedia (my translation), apparently telling us how the present medieval historians (the post-Kyösti Julku generation) in Finland perceive this question:"


It appears as if you were originally claiming, that not much of the related views changed since 1960s, but later you were saying, that in reality there is already even a "post-Kyösti Julku generation" (his much quoted book, commented here, was written in 1986, and since then the Professor Emeritus Julku has been active and highly regarded historian up to date).

Finally, the wondering minds are now questioning, whether or not you really understand the meaning of "quoting", and whether or not you understand when the quotation marks can or should be used. Please, do no longer abuse the quotation marks, at least not to set words in my mouth, which - in reality - I have not used.

Art Dominique 13:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] There is no reason to split the Kvens and their historical roots into two articles

You say: "Contemporary Kvens are a distinct group with their own history, culture, etc., and deserve their own article, unmuddled by other stuff."

However, that is exactly, what the Kven text page currently represents. This is about the "history, culture, etc.," of the Kvens, "unmuddled by other stuff".

If you think differently, please provide proof or evidence of any "stuff", that has been "muddled" in the current Kven text. Please, do as the user mikka (t) suggests in his Kven talk page comment from May 12, 2006:

"In this talk page:
  • For each deleted sentence please present the proof that it is wrong.
  • For each inserted fact please a reference in a reputable source. If it is non-English, please provide the translated quotation."

Siding your wish, user Leifern, the "contemporary Kvens" now - as of today - again have a bit more emphasis in the Kven text's lead section, as they used to have in the past, before the revert war began. The history of the Kvens follows that part, and so on. If you have suggestions for the history or any other part of the text, please inform us about anything important that you think the Kven text may be missing in your opinion.

However, please do not begin behaving like the user Fred-Chess who categorically has declined the many pleas posted on the Kven talk page for sources for his claims. He has categorically refused to give sources for his claims. That can be easily verified from the Kven talk page.

Art Dominique 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


These are two separate topics. There is lots of controversy (that I don't want to get into) about historical Kvens; but these only have passing relation to today's Kvens. It's muddled because the controversy about the historical Kvens affects the quality of the article on contemporary Kvens. I'll give this a couple of days, and then I'll split off again - please explain to me what benefit it is to keep it all crammed together. --Leifern 20:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The user Leifern, please provide detailed and credited sources to support your controversial edits

How are these "two separate topics", i.e. the contemporary Kvens and the historic Kvens ? We need to see a reputable source suggesting such a thing, please. The burden is yours to prove your claim valid. Which distinguished Kven expert or a historian supports your view. Is there any ? Who ?

For you to only state, that "There is lots of controversy (that I don't want to get into) ...", that simply is not a satisfactory reason or explanation to split this or any other article. You really do need to "want to get into it", if you wish to contribute something to this Wikipedia article, or if you wish to delete something from it, or edit it some other way.

Currently, if something of the currently presented Wikipedia's Kven information is provably controversial among historians, it either already is or it can be revealed as such. Only the findings of known and credited historians and other scientists ought to be presented.

If you disagree on any particular issue, please, do as the user mikka (t) suggests in his Kven talk page comment of May 12, 2006:


"In this talk page:

  • For each deleted sentence please present the proof that it is wrong.
  • For each inserted fact please a reference in a reputable source. If it is non-English, please provide the translated quotation."


Utmost Kven experts brought up in my comments and on the Kven text do not agree with you, user Leifern. I am quite sure that you must understand this and the rules of Wikipedia. This is no place for personal assumptions or thoughts to be presented as facts.

There is a plenty of proof and evidence available about the well established connection between the historic and the contemporary Kvens, and there is a wide consensus about the existence of this connection. Please, check the chain of comments above. You should be able to find much of such evidence, as well as the related sources.

The user 217.30.179.130 - who was praised by the user Fred-Chess on this page - sets you to the right course with his following remark:

"Of course, the present Kvens in Northern Norway have a connection with the Finnish-speaking medieval settlers in Northern Sweden and Finland."

Art Dominique 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


I have preserved every single piece of content, simply transferring content about historical Kven to a separate article. So there are no controversial edits, and I'm not disagreeing with anything that was in the article as I found it. But one of the assertions is that contemporary Kvens are descendants of historical Kvens; but so are Finns, Tornedalians, and any number of Finnish speaking groups in the Nordic area. The only thing that distinguishes today's Kvens from Finnish, Tornedalians, is that the name is the same. --Leifern 02:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fred-Chess vandalizes Kven text, provides no sources (May 21, 2006))

This appears to be the core of the problem, and the drastic, striking difference between the approaches of the user Fred-Chess and those complaining about his behavior:

In a totally opposite approach of that of the user Fred-Chess, I've categorically proceeded proving my Kven text contributions to be correct, by for instance offering exact quotes from the texts written by the utmost experts on the field, such as e.g. the Professors Kyösti Julku (a Professor Emeritus), Allan Tiitta, Seppo Zetterberg and Jouko Vahtola, etc., as well as Othar and other authors of the Viking Age, including quotes from the Viking Age sagas and other historic texts, etc.

In case of all the modern time historians, and their related sources offered by me, the names of the works of such historians have been given in detail, also the publishing years of the works in question (in the reference listings of the Kven text page also the publishing companies), and the page numbers of each of the quotes used. When translations have been used, that too is usually clearly indicated, even in the talk page texts.

This is exactly what for instance the user mikka (t) appears to be after. Accordingly, he appears to now be quite satisfied by this approach of mine, and the likes of mine. Thus, on the Kven talk page he has requested on May 12, 2006 for "a reference in a reputable source" for any changes made to the Kven text. I applaud that mikka (t)'s comment, and I have thanked him for it.

What part of this plea - coming from various Wikipedia users - does the user Fred-Chess not understand ?

I do not recall the user Fred-Chess having so far offered a single direct quote from even one modern time historian, nor a historian from the past, as a source for his claims made in the Wikipedia's Kven text, or even on its talk page. However, if there is such a case, could we now please receive the exact quote, and the place from him, where such a quote was presented by him.

Besides other such misbehavior, the user Fred-Chess has also participated in unfair blocking and delete practices having to do with the Kven related writings of Wikipedia. The one point Fred-Chess' reasoning for his protecting the Kven page was called "weird" by the Wikipedia user Splashtalk. That characterizing was made by the user Splashtalk at "22:32, 22 March 2006" on the Kven page's history page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kven&diff=45009506&oldid=44938858.

A complaint of the methods of the user Fred-Chess was placed on the Administrators' page, first on April 26, 2006, after which the user in question rose up to his defense by setting up a counter attack page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC. On the user pages he succeeded in wrangling a couple of other users to join him to his defense, by misleading them. By his intolerable misbehavior the user Fred-Chess seems to be isolating himself.

Administrators, please consider placing the user Fred-Chess into a periodic or full writing block in Wikipedia, due to his misbehavior and based on all the information given on the Talk:Kven page, and based on the several complaints placed about his behavior.

Like I, the user 217.30.179.130 has criticized the unfounded statements of the user Fred-Chess a few times. After the user Fred-Chess refused to offer any sources for his outrageous Kven related claims, and as he refused to accept the fact that he cannot expect to be able to write nonsense to the Kven text, the user 217.30.179.130 repeated his concern about one of the unfounded claims of the user Fred-Chess, the following way:


"... I would like to kindly remind that a blatant contradiction still exists in the text:

"Many prehistoric burials are known from the Finnish side of Gulf Of Bothnia to the 8th century, but afterwards only a handful of burials are known."

Compare: "Before the 8th century there are scarsely any remains of the Kvens.""


Furthermore, like I, the user 217.30.179.130 has also questioned for instance the claim of the user Fred-Chess, according to which there is no connection between the modern-day Kvens and the historic Kvens. Scientist disagree with the user Fred-Chess. No wonder the user Fred-Chess refuses to offer sources for his claims. He is unable to do so.

Art Dominique 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC) / revised by Art Dominique 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The may be some fallacies in the behaviour of me. Would you be willing to agree to mediation? I wrote a request on the talk page of Digi Wiki (assuming you are the same persons). / Fred-Chess 20:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Below, please find why mediation will not help in this case, unless you begin playing by the rules.
Art Dominique 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I am, frankly, quite annoyed by the fact that you cite me with approval when it suits you and otherwise hurl insults on my face. Please stop. As you disagree with me in several important questions, I think it is dishonest to use my comments to validate your own views now. I do not endorse many of your views. You have rejected my arguments because of sloppy references. Unfortunately, my criticism of Fred-Chess does not present any sources, so you must reject it, too. 130.234.75.181 (the same user as 217.130...) 14:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fred-Chess vandalizes Kven text, provides no sources (May 22, 2006))

I'll shake hands with you, and I'll make a prayer for you. Let us get along, and - importantly - let's play by te rules ! Instead of mediation, what we need is compliance from you with the rules and guidelines set for the Wikipedia community. For instance:


1. You need to stop deleting well sources and referenced, easily verifiable information !
2. You need stop forcing false information to Wikipedia !
3. You need to begin presenting detailed sources for your claims, especially when they are requested, and particularly if you persistently press you point of view to Wikipedia, despite of it being contested by well supported and well sourced counter claims !


If you begin complying with those simple rules, mediation will not be needed between us. If you do not begin complying with those rules - regardless of anything and/or everything -, mediation likely will not be of help.

You now know how to proceed if you believe something should be said differently in these or other Wikipedia texts. I am easy to reason and deal with, if you play by the rules.

You have continued terrorizing the Kven information and wasting many people's time, by making incomprehensible claims, which have no room in Wikipedia, and which certainly are not supported by science, including claims not supported by even a single known historian. As for yet another such example, you've provably contributed the following piece of misinformation to Wikipedia:


"This area called Kvenland is esteemed to have been the south-eastern part of today's Finland -- the part Österbotten."


---> For the beginners, as you must have learned by now, "Österbotten" is not even close to "the south-eastern part of today's Finland", and not even the southwestern or northeastern part of today's Finland.

You have continued persistently refusing to offer sources for your claims, despite of numerous pleas for you to give references and sources for your radical view points. Simultaneously - and as persistently -, you have kept deleting information which is provably backed up by valid and credited sources.

These extra procedures - which you are now orchestrating and suggesting - could only help this particular situation, if they were to get you to comply with the rules.

Instead of mediation, If you disagree on any particular issue, please, do as the user mikka (t) suggests in his Kven talk page comment of May 12, 2006:

"In this talk page:
  • For each deleted sentence please present the proof that it is wrong.
  • For each inserted fact please a reference in a reputable source. If it is non-English, please provide the translated quotation."

Art Dominique 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

Art Dominique talk, May 9, 2006 - 17:24
Drow Ssap 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC) - - I am blocked. Why??? - -


[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.