Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kven

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 22:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 00:09, 4 November 2006 (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.

Involved parties

[edit]

Requests for comment

[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC, May 2006

  • Requests for assitance at several regional notice boards, e.g. [1], 31 January 2006
  • The issue was mentioned on the WP:AN, 5 May 2006: [2]

Statement by Fred-Chess

[edit]

A user with many sock-puppets has for 10 months pushing unsupported POV on articles related to the Kvens.

addendum to Tony Sidaway
  • I was adviced by administrator user:Bishonen to take this to arbitration. Administrator user:Mikkalai also told me that the Kven-User did not technically committ anything warranting a hardblock. But yes, the wish to block the user indefinite has been made by several users. If you think this is the correct action, please tell me. / Fred-Chess 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
response to user:Labongo
  • There has been no previous arbitration about Kven-users, but I did bring it up to Mediation a couple of months ago. Kven-users did not want to participate in that either. He claimed that all that was necessary was for certain users (such as me) to stop vandalizing. / Fred-Chess 19:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leifern

[edit]

I can only confirm Fred Chess's account of the situation. This editor has made a habit of making a mess out of an article about a distinct, non-controversial topic (the minority in Norway known as Kvens), accompanied by rather pathetic attempts at intimidation with sockpuppets, e.g., : [3] [4] [5]. This editor does not appear to be interested in any kind of reasonable resolution to the disputes he has. The result is that an article - about this particulary minority - is compromised from time to time, not to mention my talk page and probably others. --Leifern 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drieakko

[edit]

Reasonable discussions have been rather difficult recently in Kvens of the past and Kvens because the user fills the discussion forums with meaningless rants and personal remarks. Vandalism in those articles as well as in Kings of Kvenland and Kven language are of less nuisance, but of course annoying. There is something to admire in his almost religious determination to mess those articles, but at the end of the day his place is not in Wikipedia to do that. --Drieakko 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complementing Mikkalai's statement (27.09.2006): from my point of view, the main problem is the multifaced user's complete and conscious indifference of Wikipedia rules. This combined together with his ignorance of the subjects he wants to write about does not bring any added value to the community. --Drieakko 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Labongo

[edit]

My impression is that the user has given up any attempts to discuss or cooperate with other editors several months ago. Currently, he uses his many sock-puppets to revert the Kven articles to versions (s)he wrote several months ago, and to post long personal attacks on the talk pages. However, my biggest concern is that his long comments, lately posted on multiple talk pages, will discourage new editors from improving the Kven articles. Labongo 06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the message below posted by an anonymous user signing as Steve Wondering in Talk:Kvens of the past is relevant for this case (Steve Wondering often post as an anonymous user). Labongo 07:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"To user Fred-Chess: We tried the route you suggest [request for arbitration] already before, remember. You indeed have been one of the major causes of chaos here - please check the archive. Despite of numerous requests, you kept pushing false information, and - of course - you were persistant in not providing sources. Then you sort of apologized for your behavior only a couple of months ago, for which we salute you. - - Steve Wondering"
Just to make it clear. The purpose of the comment above was to show that the Kven user is aware of this request for arbitration, but have chosen not to participate yet.Labongo 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mikkalai

[edit]

I've never heard the word "kven" before. I stumbled upon the whole issue when some user under multiple accounts started adding exploits of "Kvens" into articles related to the history of Ancient Rus', see e.g., the whole December 2005 history of "Varangians" article. I looked into other contributions and noticed some other really weird things like claims that the word Queen is derived from "kven" and that Finns discovered the Americas or something like this (a big article; I don't remember the name; and it was voted for deletion. One of its starting points were some reports about something like detected Finnish strains in the gene pool of native americans or in excavated bones; sorry; don't remember now).

When I asked the contributor to provide references, he added a long indiscriminate list of Norse sagas and equally long list of books (without indications how his text is confirmed by the listed books), and proceeed to ignore my remarks that sagas cannot be valid references, since they may be read and interpreted only by experts. Especially since in his long list of "Kven Kings" there was a mixture of Finns, Kvens and whats not.

Like I said, I cannot thell kvens from kvans, so initially I kept deleting only most egregious statements, which kept reappearring for some time.

Surely, the long arms of Kvens stretching to the Americas to British Isles to Bjarmland kept bothering me even in my ignorance, so I posted comments on multiple Scandinavian message boards, and finally some people who seem to know about Scandinavian history entered into the discussion.

Initially the "kven user" did not deny using of multiple accounts. However I didn't see a malicious intent: multiple accounts were not used neither for evading 3RR nor vote stacking. They simply created a mess in discussions. It looked like that the "kven user" genuinely did not understand the issue here and created a new account every day. Only in the end some accounts started screaming about "false accusations in sockpuppetry".

In a hindsight, another problem with kven-related articles was failure to discuss one item/fact at a time. I understand that "kven user" put forth a whole coherent fringe theory which is difficult to discuss piecewise; basically it is either all or none.

It is quite possible that there is a group of Finnish researchers who promote this theory and it has some notability. Therefore the first issue to figure out to what degree it is known (notable) to deserve a separate article to cover this point of view. In any case, it must be described as a theory, not a fact about Kvens. `'mikka (t) 00:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbcom is suggested

  • to formally confirm the de-facto exercised ban on using multiple accounts by this user.
  • to forbid any revert warring regardless 3RR by this user.
  • to request the "kven user" to supply his contributions with detailed statement-by-statement references, since clearly his theories are not mainstream and require either cross-verification or reformulation as an opinion of some researches rather than a "solid" fact.

`'mikka (t) 00:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kraak

[edit]

I am not certain if my statement if useful, but I think I have a reason to participate. My confrontationist attitude has probably made Kven User´s stubborness only worse, so I think I carry some responsibility of the present conflict.

Kven User apparently has two major points to make: 1) the modern ethnic Kvens in Northern Norway are descendants of Iron Age Kvens, who were supposedly living in Northern Fennoscandia, and 2) the same Kvens were a significant, possibly dominant, element in Varangian activities during the Viking Age. 1) is a contested issue; some Finnish historians, such as Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku, would agree, and many others would disagree. The problem is that Kven User wants to present Kyösti Julku´s contested theory more or less as a fact, including its more speculative parts such as the identification made between the Kvens and ancient Sitones. He wishes to censore other views, or present them in a dismissive way. 2) belongs to the world of marginal pseudohistory; not a single Finnish historian or archaeologist I am aware of has presented such theories, although Kven User claims otherwise (without representing sources). Kven User´s main source was an obscure and largely forgotten linguistical or pseudo-linguistical study from the 1930´s. Edit The above-mentioned study is actually a quite famous example of the national-chauvinistic pseudo-science of the 1930´s, but it has no source value whatsoever. --Kraak 14:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Clerk notes

[edit]
(This area is used for notes by non-recused clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

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

Principles

[edit]

Neutral point of view

[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject.

Passed 5 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

[edit]

2) Users who disrupt using aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles, in extreme cases from the site.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

[edit]

3) Accounts and anonymous ips which mirror the behavior of another user may be treated as though they are that user.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

[edit]

Kven-User

[edit]

1) Kven-User has edited as Art Dominique (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Steve Wondering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and many other accounts and ips which focus on the Kven people, ethnic Finns who live in northern Norway. See http://www.ub.uit.no/arkiv/maanedens/1999/199906e.htm for an off-Wikipedia webpage regarding the Kven.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Kven-user

[edit]

2) Kven-user's edits to Kven and related articles are characterized by aggressive biased editing, original research, and sustained conflict.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued editing

[edit]

3) Most of the sockpuppets used by Kven-user are indefinitely blocked and he has not participated in this arbitration case. However he continues to edit making these edits on October 6, 2006 to Talk:Kven (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) [6] as 213.216.208.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and [7] as Allan A1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He had recently edited on October 3rd as Random visitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See also this edit of September 23.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kven-user's controversial source

[edit]

4) Kven-user's generally quoted source is Kyösti Julku of Oulu University. He is one of a small group which have advanced a speculative theory which has received some attention in the Finnish popular press, Uralic Linguistics Vs. Voodoo Science. His theories are mentioned briefly at Kvens_of_the_past#Different_interpretations.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC

[edit]

5) Many of the principals in this case participated in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

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.

Kven-user limited to one account

[edit]

1) Kven-user shall select one account and use only that account. Any other account used may be indefinitely banned. The account selected may be communicated to the Arbitration Committee using the arbcom-l mailing list, Arbcom-l at Wikipedia.org. Pending selection of an account Kven-user may not edit Wikipedia.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kven-user placed on probation

[edit]

2) Kven-user is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kven-user banned

[edit]

3) The Kven-user is banned from editing articles related to Kven or making any edits regarding the topic.

Passed 6 to 1 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement

[edit]

Edits prior to selection of a username

[edit]

1) Should Kven-user edit under any username or ip prior to selecting a username any edit made may be removed on sight and the account indefinitely blocked.

Passed 7 to 0 at 00:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks and bans

[edit]

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.

Blocked sockpuppets:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven&oldid=1079520583"