Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


Contents

[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 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)