User:Dfrg.msc/A Story

The following is a messy and almost incomprehensible discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Some sockpuppets blocked, some pages protected, and me jumping from a 5th floor window. Húsönd 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, after five twelve days of heated debate, still no consensus in sight. Would you accept the daunting task of reviewing the resulting walls of text and passing a judgement? Or, at least, make further suggestions to help settle the conflict? --Illythr 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to mess your talk page, but I'm starting to feel we are dealing with a troll here. The way he tries to move discussion to the irrelevant issues, refusal to compromise and unwillingness to cite sources points to that way. :-( --Whiskey 10:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to semi-protect the Talk page of the Continuation War article? Art Dominique is back but doesn't log in and uses ISP IP address, or is there other ways to prevent that? --Whiskey 22:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. --Illythr 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Contentuos history views"

Well, I'm partial to the conflict myself, so prepare to be brainwashed by Stalinist propaganda. :-)

Anyhow, this section was repeatedly inserted by numerous single-purpose accounts, many of which someone had already identified as sock-puppets [1]. Calls to provide sources or at least discuss changes by other editors were largely ignored. Here is the last inserted version.

The addition is probably a result of the "Who won the war" war that raged long before that. Anyhow, after you had protected the article, Whiskey offered a paragraph-by-paragraph discussion to debunk the (totally unsourced) claims presented in the section. The responce was huge walls of text, full with pathos, more unsourced claims and, curiously, numerous sockpuppetry accusations directed at Whiskey and me, as well as some other visiting users.[2], [3], [4],[5] etc. The extraordinary claims presented by the anon army were debunked by user:Whiskey, and to a lesser extent, me. The last edit to the dispute section was made on December 28th. Since then they have mostly focused on more accusations and repeating older arguments. To me, this looks like a clear case for a rouge admin to come in and suppress The Truth™. I guess you can also ask other users, but the opinions of most of the regulars are already expressed here. --Illythr 22:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The name of the article is currently only a minor problem. user:Roobit suggested to rename the article, because he thinks that the current name represents Finnish POV. I sort of supported him, because of similarity with Great Patriotic War (the Soviet name of USSR's war against Germany and its allies) article, which discusses only the term, while the actual event is described in Eastern Front (World War II). But that issue is rather slow-moving and not the focus of the major conflict (no edits/reverts were made on it). --Illythr 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to ensure that the issue doesn't become forgotten. As long as you have it scheduled somewhere, that's fine by me. Cheers, --Illythr 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I shall initiate a Checkuser procedure. I was reluctant to do so before, because I'm rather inexperienced in due process, but, I guess, it's never too late to learn it. --Illythr 12:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser produced the obvious result, that should have been clear to everyoune from the begining: this army of puppets is nothing more then the perma-banned User:Art Dominique (also known as the "Kven user"). It took me some time to realize his true identity, as I was fortunate enough to never have passed paths with him before.

As there are no outstaning disputes, the article could be unlocked and his all edits reverted. If you do this, please inform the other parties, I am not going to do the cleanup. -- Petri Krohn 07:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll second Petri here. After the puppets were locked, there has been no comments to the disputed text. Although, I have an impression that there has been one open proxy which has been used for editing the article maintained by Elisa telehone company at the same location as our puppetmaster had worked. I wonder if it is the reason why checkuser failed to some accounts of User:Love is all we need. But anyway, let's try by unprotecting the article and cleaning the mess he created there. --Whiskey 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you can try unprotecting it. We shall remove the section and then will try to salvage whatever good info it had back into proper places of the article. I suspect that Kven user might try and hinder us by starting another revert war, though. In this case semi-protection may be in order. --Illythr 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected. Please report if the edit war resumes.--Húsönd 00:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Húsond: The revert war was re-launched by the user Illythr, immediately upon you unlocking the Continuation War article, despite of the fact that agreement had been reached to keep the contested text and to work on it, bringing in further source information, etc.

The user Petri Krohn had not participated in the actual debate, what has to do with any war related facts. He had been warned (see here: [6]) about making disruptive contributions, such as posting duplicates of unrelated comments in the middle of comments of others, as he did here: [7]; and about making disruptive comments, as here did here: [8]. Instead of these unconstructive tactics, he was asked - gently - to please participate in the debate with factual information and related sources, or otherwise in constructive manner.

Thus, looking from this perspective, the user Petri Krohn should be out of this debate now, as far as this agreement reached goes.

The saving of the contested text was initiated on Dec 29, 2006 by the approach from the major opponent, user Whiskey, by the following message: [9]. That proposal is agreeable to me, and apparently to all others, as no one has raised opposing voices against that approach.

After the settling by the user Whiskey, a few minor details were discussed about the manner and timetable for the adding of sources, etc. Now, to try to suddenly back up from this agreement reached, would be very dishonorable, and characteristic to the approach of user Whiskey.

Due to this preach of contract, I propose that the text will be locked back in its place, and that special mediation would be sought for, unless user Whiskey agrees to proceed the way hew had promised. Please, let us not waist the time of Wikipedia administrators with false promises.

Suursaari 05:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

From the side following I also propose that we should stay in a result of the long lasted article debate otherwise the debate has been meaningless. And this is not of course acceptable here. Yours, Huckleberry Hugo

He is back with new sockpuppets. I have marked these two as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Art Dominique with ten more I discovered yesterday. They should all be blocked. Any new socks should be blocked on sight. -- Petri Krohn 10:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What are the rules here? Is it so that you can list anybody you want? Maybe those others are sockpuppets, I don't know. But this is the one and only name what I have registered in Wiki. You can reveal sockpuppets with usercheck. Please, clear my name after that as soon as possible not to be a sockpuppet. --Huckleberry Hugo

Any sockpuppet suspections should be taken to WP:RCU, unless they're obvious. I'm not a checkuser and I haven't been observing the editing patterns of these users so I can't really make conclusions about more sockpuppetry. Since this issue is getting more and more complex, perhaps WP:RFI could prove useful in sorting this mess out as well.--Húsönd 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the war continues ([10]). Suggest semi-protection. --Illythr 19:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if one side engages in the war through various sockpuppets and keeps backing up its position by accusing the opposition of Stalinism, its credibility would dwindle rather quickly. Oh well, an RFC, you say? It's never too late to learn how to conduct one, I guess, although I'd rather be editing the mainspace instead... --Illythr 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One more confirmed. Still unconvinced? --Illythr 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Suursaari.--Húsönd 23:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A friendly handshake to end the deadlock of the Continuation War article

User Whiskey and everyone else: The proposal by user Whiskey [11] on December 29, 2006 for cooperation is appreciated.

His suggestion for us to hold on to the previously contested text, and to allow further sources and links to be added, and some minor alterations to be made, is in the spirit of the widely accepted Wikipedia standards and "rules".

The decision by the user Whiskey is met by a friendly handshake from the user Ahven is a fish, as long as it can be agreed to extend the exact same Wikipedia standards to cover the entire Continuation War article and its various claims, instead of this segment only. We - of course - must not have a double standard.

We must try allowing ourselves to act sensibly and sensitively with any changes proposed and made to the Continuation War article from here on.

Let us hope that others will not disagree with this attempt to cooperate. If we do not hear of opposing views by January 8, 2007, please allow the user Ahven is a fish to provide a new version of the text by January 9, 2007, in which minor alterations will have been made to the text, taking into consideration some of the suggestions that have been brought up and/or agreed upon in this forum. Also, further sources will be added.

The source below, provided by the user Bejnar on January 3, 2007, will also be added. This source confirms two very important key facts mentioned in the previously contested text, which has been under scrutiny in this forum:

1. Russian President Boris Yeltsin did admit, that the Soviet Union started the Continuation War, by its attack against Finnish targets (a claim fiercely contested by the user Illythr) .

2. President of Finland Tarja Halonen did remind in Paris, that - importantly - Finland had a separate war, siding the official Finnish view of the Government of Finland and the Parliament of Finland (a point fiercely contested by the user Illythr).

• "Finnish and Russian experts clash over wartime history" Helsingin Sanomat International Foreign Edition 22 April 2005

As the above points have formed the central backbone of the entire debate in this forum [12], it is solemnly requested, that the previously contested text will be allowed to stay intact from any further revert warring, and that sufficient time will be allowed for providing more sources, such as related book and page information, for support of the previously contested information. ---Ahven is a fish 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A fine example of what we have to face back on the talk page. Do check the "reference" to see how much truth the above claim has. --Illythr 12:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Husond: I hope you don't mind such a long message about the user Illythr. I do not like complaining about anyone. This is the first time for me in Wikipedia, ever - outside the talk pages, in acceptable language. This needs to be done, however, for the protection of Wikipedia and many of its users.

In fact, there is much more discriminating information about user Illythr available. Please, let us know, if even more such facts need to be brought forward.

The above settlement offer from yesterday drove the user Illythr very mad, sending him to go after the people who oppose his views (and techniques), in a manner uncalled for, as these people are only playing by the rules. Instead, user Illythr should just let the facts speak for themselves on the talk page.

User Illythr's naughty game and tricks were pinpointed at early point. Yet, he was suggested to just calm down on Dec 24, 2006, and admit to the facts. He took this act of good will and kindness for granted. Yesterday he began vandalizing the Continuation War talk page (see below), and listing people as sock puppets on the checkuser page, etc., people who certainly do not belong there.

There is plenty of evidence about the unacceptable actions of Illythr, with many of his sock puppet accounts. Note, that when Illythr was spoken to, he answered "I did" - only yesterday -, but he had forgotten to change his user name to his computer (see below). This is all too typical for him. That alone would not be so bad, perhaps. The bad thing is, what he is doing with the information of Wikipedia. -- Cheers, and thanks, --Ahven is a fish 15:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the sock puppeteer Illythr (Roobit [13], Whiskey, 68.39.144.136, Jatrius, etc.)

Dear user Husond (I posted this message at the checkuser page as well):

(I picked up from the message sent to user Sebbeng, and used it as a frame, adding more info about the misbehavior of the user Illythr, which ought to justify the blocking of his various user accounts. Yesterday, a settlement offer was accepted on the Continuation War talk page, to end a deadlock. This drove the user Illythr on a rampage, and that rampage spilled to this page as well. It also led to his violations of the Continuation War talk page, in several ways. Note, that Illythr replied to a comment pointed to him, yesterday. In heat, he forgot - for just a second -, that he was signed in as Roobit. These are the type of things, this user can be seen doing in regular bases. The very bad thing is what he has been doing, and what he could continue to do, to the information of Wikipedia.)

The user Illythr uses several accounts to terrorize Wikipedia's articles, which fact can be shown clearly by much evidence. That is the reason why the matter has been brought up by users on the talk pages and elsewhere, including the Finnish Wikipedia (the signer of this message was not the first to request the blocking of user Illythr). Below, please allow an explanation and related leads (for the vandal control to catch this abuser of Wikipedia):

Loosing on the Continuation War talk page debate, - in desperation - the user Illythr appears to seek rescue by trying to blackmail and criminalize the opponents, by unfounded allegations of any sort. With false accusations, he appears to have now targeted the parties that revealed his actions not suitable for Wikipedia (in the talk page comments).

In the Continuation War talk page on Dec 24, 2006, the user Illythr was pointed out - with evidence [14] - of having used a couple of user accounts in a highly unjustified manner.

At this point user Illythr came to defend himself with an us-signed message: [15] (his IP address was registered as 68.39.144.136)

Simultaneously, his alleged duel account, Whiskey (e.g., the two accounts used the rare and personal nah word, nine weeks apart), left the crime scene for days, to quickly establish a user page for his protection, after three years of solid and continuous strong POV pushing to the articles relating to Finnish wars of the 20the century.

Three of the users' main accounts, Illythr, Whiskey and Roobit, had up till then fiercely fought to push un-sourced POV, propaganda, claims (lies) of the Cold War period Soviet Union to be included in the Continuation War article, and related articles.

At 18:31 Dec 24 (UTC), the several user accounts of user Illythr were discussed in light of initial evidence [16] (more came later).

At the same time, the user Illythr was asked to please revert [17] his vandal style action where he archived messages of other users [18], while refusing to archive a highly radical POV article written by his alleged sock puppet account Roobit.

Despite of continued pleas for the user Illythr to revert his action and to also remove the radical article by "Roobit" from the top of the talk page, in manner accptable to all parties, he refused to cooperate (relatet pleas can be seen e.g. in the history file of the talk page: [19]  "Please, archive in chronological order").

Instead, the user Illythr has continued fighting fiercely [20] to keep the text on the top of the talk page, by all means.

Thus, administrators, please help: see to it, that the text to move or delete article will be finally transferred to the archives, where much newer and appropriately sourced writings have been placed by the user Illythr. Please, also see to it, that the user Illythr will no longer get to terrorize and dominate the talk page - or related pages - in question, by clearly playing against the rules.

Despite of the clear evidence provided on Dec 24 of misuse of user accounts by the user Illythr in very unacceptable manner, he was not reported further. Instead, he was asked to begin [21] cooperating from thereafter. He appeared to agree (except that he wanted to finish off by making a "check user" [22] of someone on the opposing site first).

Hours later (16:04, 25 December 2006 (UTC)), the user Sebbeng pointed out that the user account Roobit seems to belong to an unwanted sock puppeteer [23]. This alleged sock puppeteer, Roobit, originally posted [24] - without signing - the extremist Stalinist POV writing on top of the Continuation War talk page, presenting of which on top of the page user Illythr so fiercely to move or delete article fights for, resorting to strong-arm techniques not acceptable in Wikipedia.

Despite of continued pleas from other users [25] for user Illythr to archive this old radical text, along with all the other newer messages of other users which he had archived (11:25 Dec 23, 2006 (UTC)) [26] - not in chronological order -, he refused to comply, e.g. here at 19:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC): [27] (notice, how he forgot to sign in - the IP address became visible: 68.39.144.136).

This constitutes vandalism. This also must be among the reasons why the user Water suggested for the user account Illythr to be blocked [28] from editing in Wikipedia. I agree in that assessment.

The user account Roobit received a "last warning" in reference to personal attacks [29] from the user Sebbeng on Dec 3, 2006, due to personal attacks like the one shown here: [30].

To make an impression of being two separate people, the fiercely "cooperating", nah saying user accounts Illythr and Whiskey accounts only in recently began communicating through their user pages, as the allegations of the misuse began surfacing.

A bit closer look to the related user contributions by the accounts in question reveal a pattern of same wordings between the accounts. A number of other characteristics common to his user accounts are easily noticeable as well, such as use of space in the beginning of typing when editing is done etc. (more evidence against the puppeteer is available on the talk pages and in the Finnish Wikipedia, as well), also the smileys and signatures:

;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

;-) Roobit (14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

On January 3, 2007, unsigned and using the account Roobit, Illythr made a mess of the Continuation War talk page [31]:

1. by top posting (despite of several requests for him not to do so)

2. by posting between the lines

3. by even posting between the words, as in here: [32],

4. by not dating any of his comments

5. by not even signing many of his comments

6. by not using the line margins for paragraph, etc.

7. by using insulting language, as in here:

Why this rampage, even worse than normal? The reason is the very same, as in his contacting the checkuser - see here: [33]

He went wildly mad about the settlement being reached earlier yesterday morning - before the rampage of Illythr - by those who follow Wikipedia rules, see here: [34]

This was Illythr, who was upset about this proposal to end the deadlock:

From the piece of conversation copied below, one will be able to see, how the user accidentally uses his "wrong user account", Roobit, when he intends to answer to a questions as Illythr (this has happened before): "… I did? First of all some … Roobit"

This kind of distructive behavior of the user Illythr needs to be stopped a.s.a.p. Illythr is an extreme reverse image of a friendly sock puppeteer.

Besides, under all three main accounts of his in the Continuation War concersation, the user uses offending and threatening language, which is not suitable to Wikipedia:

… it will be as easy to blow your statements up than theirs. So why do you want your statements blown up? --Whiskey 14:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"are you smoking something? …" --Illythr 19:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"… some scumbag declared me a sock puppet …" [35] Roobit 09:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ( time from history file)

In the example below, the user intends to answer as Illythr, but accidently uses his Roobit account (forgets to sign in with his other user name):

Ooooookay... Could you, perhaps, help such a development by providing reliable sources to the claims in the disputed section? --Illythr 14:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The text is full of links, built-in sources, and quotes. Besides, as you can see from the history notes [36], the text was just being worked on, when you so rudely - without notice - suggested for the text to be locked. (Ahven is a fish)

I did? First of all some scumbag declared me a sock puppet … Roobit

AGAINST THE NATURE OF WIKIPEDIA, THE MULTI-USER ILLYTHR OPENLY DEFENDS LYING IN WIKIPEDIA (does it with similar wordings, in all of his accounts):

"… The totally different thing is then, does it provide the correct view." --Whiskey 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"...doesn't need to provide the correct view to be present, only the mainstream view." --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Something need not be true to be accepted as true. It only needs to stick around long enough." --Illythr 10:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"So it is not necessary for photos to be authentic to be used in the article" ([37]) …--Whiskey 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah! This article is still full of juvenile exaggeration and sureness of those who don't know.;-) --Whiskey 00:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Military aid? Nah. Ever seen US soldiers manning Soviet military installations, say, during the Caribbean Crisis? --Illythr 15:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

this article seems to be quite neutral, as it draws flak from left and right.;-) --Whiskey 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Whiskey, noticed any Marxist statements in there? ;-) --Illythr 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

… Happy New Year;-)" Roobit (14:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Ahven is a fish 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

		Húsönd has snarled! Grrr!
		This is getting a complete mess. My user talk page is not an article's talk page. Your arguments/accusations are all so entangled that I can't really get anything out of this. Maybe you should consider taking this dispute to the mediation committee or the mediation cabal. And the sockpuppetry accusations to WP:RCU. Otherwise please state your arguments briefly, clearly an soundly so that I can help you. Last but not least, be civil and assume good faith. Thank you.--Húsönd 17:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC) p.s.-I'm not mad, just want things to slow/calm down here.

Nonetheless, I shall read all of the above and see if I can understand what's going on... --Húsönd 17:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good luck in that daunting task! Meanwhile, it appears that our mutual friend here is called "Kven-user" and has already had an ArbCom decision on him. (see here). --Illythr 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that the WP:RCU has proved useful in this matter. After several users have been blocked, please report if the dispute continues with the remaining users.--Húsönd 19:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.