Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1031

Toomim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

During the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence, I commented that it was not important for Wikipedia that the voices of "conspiracy theorists, alt-righters, neo-Nazis, casual racists, anti-semites, etc" be heard, with User:Toomim immediately objecting [10]. A bit of a back & forth with NightHeron followed, as the latter attempted to convey to Toomim that alt-right was not equivalent to "right-wing" nor "conservative". NightHeron further clarified that "the term alt-right refers to the fringe wing of the right": [11] & [12]. In response, Toomim posted:

• The alt-right is a political orientation that describes many millions of people. If you are arguing to block these people from editing Wikipedia, then you are in gross violation of Wikipedia's core principle of NPOV, and someone might report your account to administration. Tread carefully. [13].

For reference, Toomim's post I was responding to was this: [14]. The above statement advocating on behalf of the alt-right was concerning to me, given that the first sentence in Wikipedia's Alt-right article reads:

• The alt-right ... is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States.

What do admins and other users think? Do we want to provide a voice for the alt-right on Wikipedia? --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not an ANI matter. EEng 16:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To be clear, Toomim also identifies as being liberal. It may be that you're in disagreement as to who the alt-right encompasses. Either way, I don't read Toomim's post as desiring to "give a voice" to a particular political group (let alone "advocating on behalf" of the alt-right), but that anonymous editors should still be allowed to edit within the topic area. In fact, the more I read into the context of Toomim's post, the more I find the entire premise claimed in this thread to be disingenuous. Even taking your complaint at face value, I'm not sure what sort of administrator intervention you're requesting. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• The concerns of K.e.coffman are real, and are not "disingenuous," as this IP-editor claims. I'm not taking a position about what, if anything, can/should be done about it. But Toomim's participation in the Race and intelligence talk page has been problematic. At one point in order to explain why Davide Piffer's writings on race and intelligence are not RS, I quoted from RationalWiki: Piffer is a research fellow of the Ulster Institute for Social Research, a racist institute founded by Richard Lynn that publishes racist pseudoscience. In response, Toomim accused me of "McCarthyism" and conducting a "witch hunt," and said my behavior was "morally reprehensible." All this for opposing the use of an alt-right source. NightHeron (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That’s fine, if there are other, serious problems with this person’s behavior, then bring it up in the OP instead of this out-of-context quote in a disagreement about whether an article should be permanently semi-protected. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • You appear to be mistaken, the behavior happened all over the talk page not just in that one discussion.
      Horse Eye Jack (talk
      ) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Then it should’ve been in the OP. If this person is being disruptive it should’ve been brought up in the OP. My analysis is based on the isolated quote and the reasonable interpretation of it. But I don’t buy the claim that opposing semi-protection means someone supports giving extremists a soapbox. I’ll note that in said discussion he never said that he supports letting extremists have a “voice” through Wikipedia. That said, I think it’s entirely appropriate to give a warning under AP2 given the clear argument that conservative viewpoints are being silenced in violation of NPOV. Whether a topic ban is appropriate is a different matter and requires more evidence than OP provided. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • I interpret the OP as citing the entirety of
          Horse Eye Jack (talk
          ) 18:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Diffs of misconduct are necessary, especially to establish a pattern. A vague wave to a talk page is entirely unhelpful and insufficient. All OP provided are a few diffs in one dispute over semi-protection that, for reasons I’ve already stated do not seem that “egregious”. For one, despite everyone’s claims to the contrary, he doesn’t seem to have said anything regarding giving anybody a “voice”. Yes, he made a claim that conservative voices are being silenced in favor of liberal voices, and that deserves a warning. But I don’t read his comment as meaning extremist viewpoints should be presented with equal precedence. This was after all a dispute about semi-protection of the talk page and not content in the article. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
            • What do you think of these assertions[15]? Note that they are under a completely different section which is a dispute over article content.
              Horse Eye Jack (talk
              ) 19:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Unconstructive and unhelpful on his part. 199.66.69.88 (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• WP:NONAZIS. Bishonen | talk
  18:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC).

• Giving a voice to the alt-right would be violating wp's policy on NPOV and
  these tools want a voice they should go to Facebook or 4chan or whatever cesspool they've made home now. Praxidicae (talk
  ) 18:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No opinion either way and I understand the NPOV part, but how would it violate V? Also have we established Toomim is a Nazi? PackMecEng (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
    • For the same reason using someones personal research posted to their blog would violate WP:V? We can't rely on such sources for facts. Alt-right are masters of twisting fact. Gold level mental gymnasts, I'd say. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

      Gold level mental gymnasts, I'd say – Can't agree with you there. They're actually quite clumsy at it, but their audience's critical faculties are so dull that it doesn't matter that what they're saying makes no sense. EEng 22:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

      True facts. PackMecEng (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

      • No one purposed personal research that I can see. Also you skipped the second part of my question. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from here. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Oh maybe I should be more clear. I have
          doubts about an editor's intent who thinks it's appropriate to post images like those linked on their userpage(see the second photo down) while simultaneously editing Race and intelligence. Praxidicae (talk
          ) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh good, I was worried you were calling another editor a Nazi which would be wildly unacceptable. PackMecEng (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
          • @Praxidicae: The raised fist picture? I'd say he's a suspected communist now as well! --Pudeo (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
            • @Pudeo: Hahaha... I was actually going for Mario. Did you notice the mustache?? --Toomim (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• The discussion at Race and intelligence has been problematic, Toomim has dismissed other user's concerns while demanding that their own concerns be treated with utmost seriousness. The accusations being leveled against other edits of McCarthyism etc are also inappropriate. Whether or not they themselves are a member of a fringe group they are certainly giving voice to much more fringe/pseudoscientific opinions than would normally be allowed per
  Horse Eye Jack (talk
  ) 18:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• This is fairly easy, actually, an
  demeaning anyone who disagrees is what we have discretionary sanctions for. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits
  ) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that nothing should be stated in Wikipedia's voice that supports the alt-right opinion, just as it should not support other opinions.
  Phil Bridger (talk
  ) 18:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• There is no viewpoint screening in Wikipedia. However, if alt-right editors fail to adhere to
  WP:V with tendendious editing, they can be blocked just like anyone. What is the point of this thread, to chastise Toomim for his definition of alt-right? The article says that the term is ill-defined so it might be unwise to continue that discussion here. Talk:Race and intelligence has 100 archive pages, so it might be a good idea to stop using it as a forum to discuss things like this. --Pudeo (talk
  ) 20:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• I will note that the overwhelming majority of Toomim's total edits are to the Race and intelligence topic area and in just the past several months, despite having an account from 2007. XTools shows 163 live edits, with 138 edits to this topic area. That is concerning to me from an
  talk
  ) 21:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• SPA is more troubling, editors like that typically have an agenda. It may be spam, a conflict of interest, it doesn't matter. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Toomim does appear to be rather straightforwardly arguing that the alt-right deserves a voice on Wikipedia, that it's not fringe, and that we should ignore NONAZIS because it is not a policy. Is this really a "good faith" editor who should be editing fucking Race and Intelligence? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And the alt-right has a history of pretending to be something else (hell, they started off as Nazis pretending to be something else).

Anyone want some Flavor-Aid before they try to argue with this? Ian.thomson (talk

) 06:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yah I'm a bit bit surprised SPA on Race and Intelligence who wants to make sure we don't discriminate against the pro-Nazi point of view hasn't generated action (perhaps because the subject is civil and suffering from ANI flu?). --

talk

) 15:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@

Joel B. Lewis: I think it may be because they don't edit the article, they just talk. Anyway, I'll say I think K.e.coffman was right to bring it here, and I've watchlisted their pages (Toomim's, not KEC's). Bishonen | tålk

19:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC).

Kenji1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their entire contribution history consists of attempts to whitewash articles on a small number of problematic academic publishers, except for a small amount of pointy argumentation (

Kenji1987's same pattern of civil POV-pushing has also spilled over into my talk page, to the point where I explicitly gave up on responding, only to have Kenji1987 continue to try to extend the argumentation: see User talk:David Eppstein#Accusing me of whitewashing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if "

b

} 18:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am trying in all honesty to contribute to improving the pages related to open access publishing. I might be overdoing it at times, but I find the general athmosphere quite toxic. If you look at the Talk page of MDPI, you can see that I am open for discussion about restructuring the pages, but its either ignored or I am accussed of whitewashing. JBL repeatedly asked me to "go away", and from day 1 I joined Wikipedia, I never really had the chance to join a discussion without being accussed of whitewashing. Whatever the result is of this proposed ban, its all documented, and while we can never see someone's true intentions, I am just an academic trying to do my part making information on scholarly publishing on Wikipedia a bit less biased. MDPI's page is graded of C quality, and there is a reason for that. There are a group of editors trying to discourage other users for making changes, upon we end to having this situation: a total ban. Im willing to have an open discussion about improving pages on open access publishers, and refrain from making further edits in the meanwhile, but then I need constructive arguments, and not discussions about me or my integtrity. On the other hand, if it is decided that I should be banned, then there is a lesson here to be learned, the reader is able to decide what lesson that is. Kenji1987 (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

talk

) 00:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Joel_B._Lewis That is simply not true. I have edited pages on universities, cities I like, and other odd pages. Not as much as academic publishing (maybe 95% of my edits?), but in order to have a right judgement, you cannot simply state things which are not true. Kenji1987 (talk

) 02:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Although this is not

WP:AGF and assume it's not the case, but to persuade them, it would be a good idea to move on to other pages when contested, or even other topics, before an eventual topic ban occurs to enforce that, or even a full site ban... —PaleoNeonate

– 03:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

talk

) 03:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

And for some reason "fixing" the page seems so urgent as to require the use of help templates... Moreover, the MDPI article itself has had a lot of previous COI editing issues before. If the goal was really to bring articles to GA status, why not try with less controversial pages? If not really COI, it's still at the point of

disruptive editing. —PaleoNeonate

– 03:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I did, for example see

Plos One. Kenji1987 (talk

) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Right: that's the small amount of

talk

) 16:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that editing one particular topic all the time can invoke the feeling of having a conflict of interest. The point is, from Day 1, I have been accused of that. Now, the MDPI wiki is particularly sensitive to users having a COI and I have made (and I am still making) novice mistakes (for example by assuming that doing your own research can be part of Wikipedia), but every time, I am trying to start a discussion (see the Talk page, I am repeatedly asking for input, suggestions, and even help) I have to defend myself, up until the point, that I am now discussing whether a total ban is justified or not. Now, I did not not know what civil POV-pushing was (until today), and I will try not to have endless discussions, especially if users tell me that they don't want that any longer (I have never received a warning about this), but at the same time, I am honestly interested in for example, what constitutes a newspaper style article and what is encyclopedic, what generally goes into a lead and what not, when is a source outdated and when is it not, and so on, and so on. I see for example a double standard how criticism is reported for Scientific Reports (a section I added by the way) and MDPI. For the former it is short, to the point, and no quotations used, for the latter, it is a whole essay about what editors felt, who rhetorically asked what, and which magazines called some of its articles "crazy" or "silly" or what not. Now, I do not want to start this discussion here (and I understand that this is not the place for these kind of discussions - it is discussing whether a total, topic or no ban is justified for me - and whatever the outcome may be, I have little influence over this), but these are some of the issues I am trying to raise. If this is against WP-policy, Ill stop doing it, and observe a little longer what is allowed in editing, and what not, but if this is reasonable, then I am willing to have an open discussion about how to be a responsible Wiki-editor. I honestly get triggered when people reduce my whole reply to simply "whining" or when discussions are cut off through saying things like "go away"[1,2,3]. Ps. I laid out my concerns, I leave it here now, I will hear later what the outcome is. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MDPI&offset=&limit=500&action=history [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDPI Kenji1987 (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This was archived with no action, but I feel prematurely -- several editors have weighed in above to confirm the problems with the editing. I am not particularly tied to my original proposal, and would appreciate if any other administrators could take a look and consider an indef, a topic ban, or at a minimum administering a clear warning about the problematic behavior. (Given Kenji1987's response to previous feedback, I doubt that the last one will be successful in preventing problems.) --

I look forward to hearing about my "fate" - I have laid out my arguments, and I have nothing further to add, but at the same time, I would like to ask the administrators to comment on JBL's way of approaching me, since September 2019. I have added the links above (just search for "go away" in the page). Kenji1987 (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse topic ban or
  WP:NOTHERE block. I formed the same conclusion myself based on edits to articles on my watchilist. Guy (help!
  ) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
• It seems that Kenji has been somewhat unwilling to listen to other editors. I noticed that when told to stop, he replied with This is off-topic. I've noticed a lot of POV-pushing, and
  talk
  ) 15:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on a controversial article on race and intelligence in MDPI, something which is terrible the publisher allowed. Something which opponents should welcome, so I dont know why this is mentioned here. I liked this to be rectified. Controversies is a section where we add these kinds of information,but it is now used to justify a ban. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@

talk

) 15:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I didnt see it as relevant why you mentioned this edit, and I still dont see it, hence I interpreted it as another justification for a ban. Why did you mention it? Just because the topic is controversial? What view am I pushing? Additional edit: im accused of whitewashing MDPI and Frontiers Wikinpages, if any it would make little sense then to add controversial information. But I am genuinely interested why you mentioned my edit.Kenji1987 (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Kenji1987 has declared that they are taking a break from Wikipedia; I hope that this will not prevent action based on the unanimous consensus of those who weighed in that their behavior is problematic. --
  talk
  ) 13:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

to state: "I'm taking a break from Wikipedia. I find the athmosphere on academic publishing pages quite toxic (making use of my freedom of expression), and several editors have asked for a ban. While this regardless of the outcome of a ban, might be good news for editors with opposing views, I find it sad that new editors are not able to establish themselves". As a new editor, no one really knows me except for people that fervently oppose my views - so I dont expect people to support me here (I do trust Randykitty - and in my absence I entrust them to safeguard some pages from vandalism). But above example which was used against me (or not? I dont know, still awaiting answer why this was mentioned) on the race intelligence controversy on MDPI which I added (but initially did not mention here) shows that I have no interest whitewashing a publisher or two. The fact that JBL does not let go is fine by me as I am also eager to find out what is allowed here and what not, but it also shows you the atmosphere new editors who do not think MDPI or Frontiers is total crap have to work with. Any edit I make is observed. Sure I made some novice mistakes, but I also feel compelled to take a small break as this is consuming way too much of my time and emotional state of mind. Kenji1987 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I prematurely closed this yesterday and have reopened it at the request of JBL on my talk page. I made a couple of other bad closures yesterday, so my apologies. I will make it clear that I'm not involved here and have no opinions, I'm just leaving a courtesy notice. Amaury • 15:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Dear JBL, Ill keep on responding to this particular thread until it is resolved, as a new editor, I dont have the social capital to ask others to defend me (and before you know it you are labelled in the same group as the race intelligence fanatics - and yes I stil await a response to my question from the other editor). I wont edit other pages as stated on my user page, temporarily that is, maybe half a year. I'd like to add that JBL left the following quote on Amaury's talk page: " Particularly, anything Kenji says should be viewed with skepticism, including the idea that they're stepping away (obviously, since they responded to my comment)". I personally take offense in this particular statement and I believe that this is against Wikipedia rules. Setting up other editors against one another is (at least that's how I see it JBL might see otherwise), once again, a reason why I say that the atmosphere is toxic and why I stopped editing. Thanks to the editor that closed this discussion, but I say lets keep it open, and Id like the admins to comment not only on my behaviour but also JBL's (if I am allowed to request this). In the meanwhile, Id like to ask JBL to refrain from talking about me, unless its here. That's a kind request. Additional edit that JBL tends to tell other editors how they should perceive me is not a one time thing, can be seen here: "@Scitechwiki: All edits made by Kenji1987 here should be viewed in light of his other edits (see particularly Talk:MDPI and Talk:Frontiers in Psychology). --JBL (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PLOS_One#Request_to_mention_Beall_in_the_lead). This was totally unprovoked, and in the end me and the other editor reached a consensus we were both happy with. Kenji1987 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

1. User:Gamesmasterg9 has repeatedly reverted in full this corrected version of the article Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, and replaced it with an older version which contains multiple fact-errors and untruthful/discrediting statements on individual doctors (living persons). All while referring to sources whose actual content do not support the false claims. [16]

2. This and similar issues of editing misconduct are explained in the article’s Talk page, Talk:Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights#Necessary_edits which, if I may, I suggest its reading by an administrator as part of the assessing of this complain.

3. Following “Wikipedia: administrator intervention against vandalism”, I have already notified warnings to User Gamesmasterg9. However, after revewing the history of the article’s edits, it clearly appears that Gamesmasterg9’s disrupting action towards ”Swedish Doctors for Human Rights” constitutes a behavior rather than isolated disruptive edits. A conduct which started in conjunction with Wikipedia ruling against a Gamesmasterg9-supported proposition for deleting the article back in 2017.

4. I would like to note, that the reverts done by Gamesmasterg9 do not target specific edits, instead the user is reverting the article in full, not attending to the explanations for the single changes explained in the Talk page.

5. As solely explanation for the reverts in full, Gamesmasterg9 has written “WP:COI”. I have messaged to Gamesmasterg9 that I would welcome the user’s report to the COI noticeboard. Which Gamesmasterg9 has not done. For it is hardly my fact-based edits, but Gamesmasterg9’s behavior all along the edit-history of this article, which may call for an investigation.

3. As Wikipedia describes Disruptive editing as “a pattern of editing...that may extend over a long time..., and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia”, based in the history of User Gamesmasterg9’s disruptions in this article, and the twice vandalising of it that the user incurred in the last week, I would like to ask for protection of the corrected version, and, if possible, for an independent review by an administrator.

Best regards, Toverster (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing was vandalized. Your massive rewrite was reverted, which can be frustrating, and

BRD, because they have been contested. Grandpallama (talk

) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

When you say that I call “vandalism” edits that I "don’t like, and you say that without any proof, and despite that I had given fact-based reasons for my edits (put forward in the Talk page), you ascribe me bad faith in my work as new editor in Wikipedia. What a welcome. Nevertheless, with that you concomitantly give me the reciprocal right to assume, that you would have reverted the sum of all my work just because “you didn’t like the edits”. But I gladly abstain of being reciprocal, because my query is instead about the neutrality and verifiability of the content that this article should have according to, yes, the Wikipedia rules. Perhaps, you might change your stance after your read “Necessary edits”. [17]

My complain is not about “not-liked edits”, Grandpallama. Instead, it is about the compact erasing of all my edits (the rationale for each of them explicated in the said Talk page) and the 50 new references to verifiable sources which I added in trying to correct the article according to Wikipedia policies. It is about the deletion of nearly the full page of the article, as a package. And without referring no comment whatsoever about the content of the different new edits erased as a block by Gamesmasterg9. I might be wrong in my interpretation of what vandalism refers to in Wikipedia, and in that case I settle for only WP:DE, which you did not comment. You have the editing experience, and I trust you are right on the use of “vandalism”. Nonetheless, I did not infer the concept “vandalism” out of the blue. This is what “Wikipedia: Vandalism” says (excerpted): “The malicious removal of encyclopedic content…without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view, verifiability and no original research…” [18].

My contention (and I would believe that you or any other experienced administrator like you that would take the time to read “Necessary edits” [19] would agree), is that several key statements about SWEDHR in the older version infringe the core policy of neutral point of view. Likewise, that most of the references (among the 22 that the old version contains) do not pass the test of verifiability in correspondence to the respective statements given in the article. In other words, a biased article, main characterized by a pristine negation of neutral point of view and verifiability.

You posted yesterday in the article’s edits-history the following line, on top of my las edit: “Your edits are contested; don't revert them back in during a discussion.” [20]. However:

1) There is no “discussion” whatsoever going about the new edits in the Talk page. “Discussion” in Wikipedia can hardly mean an arbitrary decision by Gamesmasterg9 to block any edits without giving reasons attending to the factualness/verifiability of the information and references given in the new edits. In my humble opinion, discussion would mean instead to put forward arguments and counter-arguments about the content of the edits and its rationale. And this is supposed to be done in the Talk page. Instead, no entry has whatsoever been done in the Talk page commenting the arguments of my edits, before or after its erasing from the published article done by Gamesmasterg9.

2) Secondly, about what you wrote: “Your edits are contested “. Well, it is rather the other way around. It is instead my edits which, with fact-based arguments, have contested the flawed version of the article. Again, and I apologize for the insistence, a rationale for each of the new edits was explained in the Talk page.

What the new edits have contested? I give here only some examples:

a) In the lead, and in section “Positions taken by the organization”, as well as in the rest of the article, it is completely omitted a mention to the main activity (also statistically measured) implemented by SWEDHR from its start, which is the campaigning on behalf of freedom for Julian Assange.

b) The blunt tergiversation of the statements done by our Minister of Defense Peter Hulqvist (which are the Swedish government’s stances) regarding Sweden’s position towards NATO. The old version of the article ascribes to Minister Hulqvist positions he never said in the cited source (Swedish newspaper DN), namely, as it wrongly stands in the article, that “The minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. That was never been said by Hultqvist, neither is that what the referred source reported. He only talked about “collaboration” between Sweden and NATO, never about favoring membership or affiliation. This is a subject hyper sensitive in the Swedish public and government (that instead favors neutrality and non-alignment). Or a variety of falsehoods or incorrect information about, or ascribed to, SWEDHR, the very subject of the article.

c) The mainstream media cited in references in the old version have never referred to SWEDHR as “a Russian propaganda site”, as it is affirmed in the article. What they say is that findings in investigations done by SWEDHR have afterwards been used or misused for propaganda aims, even after the organization’s protests. One mainstream media source that I found recently sums up the false claim against SWEDHR as “irony”. It says in the article “Propaganda, lies and videos: Russian media and the Khan Sheikhun massacre”: “This fake news has continued to spread, even after the Swedish organization attributed and linked to the report refuted it”. [21]. (Anyone wishing to establish which organizations and publications in the views of mainstream media, are listed as "Russian propaganda sites", should instead check the list at PropOrNot, where neither SWEDHR nor its publication The Indicter are listed. [22]).

e) The false personal imputations regarding Dr. Leif Elinder, which the older version incurred.

3) In addition, regarding verifiability, the new edits are sourced in a total of 70 references. The old version (the one Gamesmasterg9 and you reverted to) contained only 22 references.

Finally, your personal consideration, and Gamesmasterg9’s, about my edits “looks suspiciously COI”, can hardly be regarded acceptable as reason to insist keeping the article with the flawed information that it contains. Once more, I ask Gamesmasterg9 and now to you, to report those “suspicions” to the COI board, and ask them to investigate. For the record, I utterly oppose any insinuation about COI. I deny COI.

For your information, I am a Swedish doctor, and I am the author of the Wikipedia article “Swedish Medical Association”, SMA. Even if I had read about SWEDHR, I did not know about the Wikipedia article. It did not exist in the Swedish Wikipedia. In preparing the SMA article (which I could not post before I done the ten edits), I searched articles referring to the SMA in Wikipedia. I found only three, one of them was the SWEDHR article. Reading it, the amount of disinformation appeared at first glance. Especially the absolute omission of the Assange case as a main endeavor of the organization, and for which, I would say, the organization is most known in Sweden. So it was for me.

To give you a freshest example, reading today, as I do every morning, Sweden’s largest newspaper Aftonbladet (according to Wikipedia “one of the largest daily newspapers in the Nordic countries” [23]) I saw one main article signed by the professors in the leadership of “Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights, SWEDHR”. The article’s title (translated) is “Government: demand the freedom of Julian Assange” (“Regeringen, kräv att Julian Assange friges“). [24] Last week, through an article in Sydsvenka Dagbladet, another Swedish mainstream newspaper, the reader was informed that SWEDHR doctors formed part of the signatories in an article published by The Lancet, also about the Julian Assange human rights theme. I dare say that The Lancet is world most known medical journal.

I know the professional, medial and societal panorama of the medical community in my country well. And I have the possibility to direct verify what the Swedish media have really said about SWEDHR. This includes, for example, the space that the journal of the Swedish Medical Association has given to that organization since 2015, almost two years prior to what the article incorrectly stated, to make appear the organization unknown in Sweden and irrelevant in the context.

Finally, in trying to reach an understanding, I am not going to repost the full text containing all my edits, as I done before. Nevertheless, now I will select and repost summarily the most essential corrections. If you or Gamesmasterg9 do not agree with the corrected facts in the new edits, please explain your reasons in the Talk page. I am totally open for a discussion and I really hope we will be able to reach an agreement.

For transparency, I am also posting this text in the Talk page of the article.

Thanks for taking your time on this. Toverster (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please offer your thoughts more succinctly; no one is going to read this wall of text. More importantly, what I stated before is true: a revert of your edits is not "vandalism," and your edits have been contested.

The OP needs some admin attention, and the article needs more eyes. Despite the discussion occurring here, Toverster attempted to reinsert edits that largely removed, or

weaseled the wording of, well-sourced statements about SWEDHR's role as a propaganda arm of the Russian government with the false edit summary that the edits were "cosmetic" in nature. [25] I'm not sure if these edits are COI (although they feel like it), but they are definitely trying to push a particular POV not in line with RS, which this article has had to fend off multiple times (most notably in May 2017, when the sock of an LTA suddenly emerged to make very similar edits). The OP isn't just a brand new account here, but also only just created an account today on the Swedish wiki [26], where their edits have all been regarding Wikileaks and Julian Assange, as well as a draft of a SWEDHR article (that largely just copies the lead of the enwiki article). Grandpallama (talk

) 17:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

After my comment above, and instead of replying, user Grandpallama just proceeded to delete without explanation small edits I have done, and that I have announced (see above) in order to reach some compromise. He deleted even those edits not at all controversial (such as inserting of "[[ ]]" for linking to a Wikipedia article). Of course I will not insist in the edits until all this is clarified. But, by whom, or where is the ongoing discussion? Can anyone one tell me please? If any administrator see this post, please advise me what to do. For I really don't know, honestly, how to proceed in order to correct the falsehoods contained in that Wikipedia article [27]. If it is not possible at all to do changes, just tell me that clear, and I will comply. Toverster (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

But, by whom, or where is the ongoing discussion? For now, since you initiated a conduct discussion, it's occurring right here. Your edits were objected to as COI, and you reported another user for behavior and asked for intervention. Potential conduct concerns need to be sorted out at this stage separately from a content discussion (which does not belong on this page). You shouldn't be trying to edit war the material back in until there is some closure around the allegations you have made, though, which is exactly what you did despite your claim that Of course I will not insist in the edits until all this is clarified. Also, pinging Gamesmasterg9 again, who should really be chiming in. Grandpallama (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC) Also pinging Drmies and El C as admins who helped clean up the article in 2017. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, dear god! Out for 2 days and this.

WP:COI, but I'll let others weight in.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk

) 07:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But after all, what else can one expect from some editors in the referred article, those having the nerve of even invent positions and declarations ascribed to our Defense Minister, which he had never said, about most serious matters of our national security. Toverster (talk)

• Anyone with 2 cents of knowledge about Sweden will see in a few seconds that the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights presently (in the Gammemaister/Gandpallama version) is a totally shitty article. It presently says: "The [Swedish Defence minister] had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable due to Russia's recent military buildup."
• Now, did anyone hear an atom bomb go off in Sweden? No? Me neither. IF the Swedish Defence minister had said the above, then that would have been the equivalent of setting off a (political) atom bomb in Sweden. Needless to say, it is not in the sources given.
• More eyes on that article is desperately needed, Presently Gammemaister/Gandpallama "have prevailed" (as they said) by a stubborn tag-teaming effort and
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT tactics, Huldra (talk
  ) 21:15, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:IDHT that has occurred is with a brand new account that tried to edit war in a major rewrite and then immediately took another user to ANI over the reversions (which they have deceptively called "vandalism"). Restoring the article to its last stable version while a discussion is ongoing is standard practice, not "stubborn tag-teaming." The previous version of the article was long-standing and was arrived at by the consensus of a number of editors who cleaned it up in 2017, though I know you disagree with its content. Grandpallama (talk

) 21:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama: That was Gamesmaster G-9 (who you pinged) words above: "ultimately we prevailed". The previous "consensus" was after you had driven anyone with another view away from the article (editors like myself). And I say it is

WP:IDHT-game, Huldra (talk

) 22:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: but I think this page is not the right page for that (as I have told Toverster). We should move those arguments to Talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights, Huldra (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

PPS: I also shudder at the thought that this garbage ("The [Swedish Defence minister] had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable due to Russia's recent military buildup") has apparently been in the "stable version" for years. Huldra (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@

assume some good faith. I'm not interested in countering Toverster's arguments, because ANI is not the place for content and he shouldn't (as you pointed out to him more than once) be pushing them here. COI allegations were countered with allegations of vandalism and bad-faith editing, not to mention an attempt by this brand new SPA to get Gamesmaster G-9 blocked from editing the page, and those are an ANI concern. Grandpallama (talk

) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SWEDHR article, so how on earth can you say you have never edited that page? Huldra (talk

) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Huldra Context. The previous "consensus" was after you had driven anyone with another view away from the article (editors like myself). I never edited that page before this ANI report, so no, I did not establish a previous consensus or make edits that drove you away from the article. Grandpallama (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, pardon me, User:Grandpallama, but I interpret "have never edited the SWEDHR page" as...having never edited the SWEDHR page. Also, frankly your statement that "I've been neutral and uninvolved" sounds a bit hollow to me, when you have been doing the main reverting lately.

That said, I think all parties could "tone down" the language a bit; that is, no more unfounded accusations of COI, no more accusations of vandalism.

But most of all, editors really NEED to address the issues raised at Talk:Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. So far no-one has answered the questions during these last 10 days, Huldra (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I interpret "have never edited the SWEDHR page" as...having never edited the SWEDHR page. Well, then, that's pretty disingenuous, since I directly referenced your statement and it was clear what I meant. With less verbal fist-swinging and assumption of bad faith, maybe you'd be able to interpret more correctly. The article does need admin attention, and I'd hoped that Drmies or El C would chime in, since they were involved in its earlier clean-up. And while you may think I'm not involved, I'd say the fact that I'd never edited the page plus I was reacting to a problematic ANI report is pretty close to textbook "uninvolved". Grandpallama (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, let's agree to disagree. Your reverts reinstated obviously wrong info, (like the NATO membership issue); blind reverting is not "close to textbook "uninvolved", in my world. Huldra (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Grandpallama: You wrote, “Restoring the article to its last stable version while a discussion is ongoing is standard practice". Then, where are yours and Gamesmaster G-9 arguments in this “ongoing discussion” (here or in the article’s Talk page), debating the reasons I put forward for the edits that you blocked? For example: Is the fact-based info I provided in my previous entry (above), about the fake 2-8 references, wrong? If so, do state why. And if not wrong, you HAVE to “allow” the corrected edit to be in the article. Otherwise you (or Gamesmasterg9) are exercising a “power” you do not have as WP editor. Or assuming that you have it, you may be abusing it. The same about the rest of my arguments stated in the Talk page [28] explaining the edits you erased. Where are your arguments in the “ongoing discussion” ?

The article you have held up as current version states: ”(Sweden’s defense) minister had argued that Swedish membership in NATO was desirable”. A plain invention! THIS is what the Swedish defence minister really said in the DN article referred in the current version:

“We have chosen a cooperation approach, instead of a membership approach with NATO” (“Vi har valt en samarbetslinje och inte en medlemslinje i förhållande till Nato.”) [29].

Don’t you realize that the made-up misquote backed by Gamesmaster G-9 et al, that figures in the current version, putting up-side-down a central stance of the Swedish government, is a serious issue that should be prompt corrected?

You justify all these falsehoods (and there are plenty more in the version you protect) by saying that the current version is the “long-standing”, “stabile version”. Whereas is the opposite: the fact that those falsehoods have managed to subsist for so long is an extra imperative for correcting them ASAP under the criteria of neutral point of view and verifiability. Toverster (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Important consultation to administrators: 1) Does it exist in Wikipedia a rule saying it is enough that a simple editor arbitrarely tags another editor with “COI” in the summary at the edit-history of the article (with no explanation given as to why “COI”, neither a COI complain reported to WP), [30] for deleting all the edits by the tagged editor, and the subsequent banning for his further edits? 2) Is that simple tagging enough for WP to consider the tagged user “contested” (Grandpallama, see above and [31]), and 3) for that same reason issuing a prohibition against the the tagged editor to further edit in the article? Toverster (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Toverster, please stop posting walls of text. You've been asked this more than once. Please keep your content discussion on the talkpage of the article in question.

However, it would be nice if you'd address a few things. Like how a new user was so familiar with the existence of ANI, COIN, and the details of a specific AfD that occurred three years ago; this is not impossible, but it is not the general behavior of someone without a past on Wikipedia. Are you a member of SWEDHR? Grandpallama (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, Expressen, Dagens Nyheter, and Le Figaro.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk

) 21:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Gamesmasterg9: what we need from you is easy: for a start, go to the Talk:Swedish_Doctors_for_Human_Rights#Break and counter Toverster objections to the 7 references to that sentence in the lead, Huldra (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Toverster, hur mar du? Please accept this edit as a pointer that will make posts, esp. long posts, more easily legible and navigable. Second, anyone whose first edit this, is essentially a revert of serious magnitude, should expect other users to at least raise an eyebrow. Third, that first talk page post of yours will require me more than one cup of coffee to read. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
• While I'm looking into this, refreshing my memory on edits made three years ago, I'll just note that this is the kind of edit that takes the concept of a neutral encyclopedia with relevant, verified content seriously. And I'll add, just to make sure, that I don't believe I have had much or any contact with this editor. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Also with couple of observations and pointers:

1. I don't really remember this article from my limited involvement in it three years ago.
2. Huldra had marked the article as {{unbalanced}} already back then, just as she has recently. So far consistent.
3. conflict of interest
   with regards to this article. They should have proposed their edits on the talk page rather than edit directly. → However, their edits should not have been reverted on the basis of their COI alone but on the merit of the content.
4. The length of Toverster's comments in this noticeboard report are rather excessive → they're new, but still. Who burdens members of a volunteer project with so much text? That's not right.
5. accompanying requests
   is how each side in the dispute ought to advance their position with respect to their preferred version.
6. I am not familiar with this dispute in any way (have not caught up to the latest or refreshed my mind about the past) and otherwise am agnostic as to the merits of either version. El_C 22:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

SWEDHR? Huldra (talk

) 22:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, don't be silly. I agree with El C that the nature of the edits suggest we are likely dealing with a COI-editor here, trying to promote an organization and its points of view. For the record, I am also a Swedish doctor--it's one of many talents I have. Drmies (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, I am a Russian dancing bear. EEng 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

LOL@

single purpose account. And like many single purpose accounts, their single-mindedness is also reflected in the excessive length of their comments. All of which are indicators to me of a conflict of interest being likely. El_C

23:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, well, User:El C: it reminds me of what I was met with, when I started editing the Palestinian articles nearly 15 years ago. Not the excessive length, though. But the editor I most often have seen accused of having posts of excessive length is no SPA. So, sorry, I don't "buy" your argument, And User:Drmies: "trying to promote an organization and its points of view", well you could also have said removing falsehoods (...that NATO statement, again). Presently the article is no more than an ATTACK-article.

SWEDHR opinions are not mainstream, for sure. But I vividly recall the viciousness that people were met with, back in 2003, if you didn't believe that Saddam had WMD, and how the French were vilified for doubting it (recall those US leaders who wanted to rename French fries to Freedom fries

? Seriously, you couldn't make this up.

I absolutely hate to say this, but Russian and Chinese media were far more correct wrt to those WMDs, than Western

SWEDHR is to me no automatic reason to vilify SWEDHR (which is exactly what Wikipedia is presently doing), Huldra (talk

) 23:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Huldra: first, I'm not "selling" an argument. These are my impressions based on my extensive experience with COI edits and SPA editors. Second, as an avid Nishidani reader, I can state without reservation that they are not even remotely as lengthy as Toverster has been here. El_C 00:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@El C:: pardon my English, what I mean by "not buying it" is just that you have not convinced me by your argument. Huldra (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, lesigh. Your experience from so many years ago is not to the point. I'm not really interested in this kind of whataboutism, but the restoration of that information touting members was fluff ("Anders Romelsjö is the publisher of [http://globalpolitics.se/ “GlobalPolitics.se”, which has been placed since several years among the first three top posts in the annual ranking of best Swedish political blog as done by blogtoplist.se"), and denying that is silly. I don't know what you mean with "that NATO statement" and I really don't care. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Huldra, if "the Russian media" got something right that "the Western media" got wrong (and these generalizations are already unwarranted), that doesn't mean that in this case it's the same thing--17 years later on a different matter in a different world. And at any rate that is a matter for RSN, not for here. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Drmies: I was not generalising; I mention one specific (and extremely important issue)...which has caused the lives of hundred of thousands of people in the Middle East since 2003. I could mention another issue: the 2011 military intervention in Libya: again: Western intervention on false premises (no, Gaddafi was not about to massacre people in Libya: that was false intel from Islamist sources, which the West (unbelievably) trusted). Again: the Western media swallowed that, hook, line and sinker....while the Russian media (in general) did not.

Look, I am not happy to say this (as a woman living in the "West"): but, (also as one who also has visited the Middle East more times than I can count these last 20 years): our governments and our mainstream media lies to us, constantly, about the Middle East. (OK, here I am generalising!) (Read eg. As'ad AbuKhalil twitter account, how he makes fun of the MDM reporting about the ME.) I could mention a hundred cases, but (as I am sure you agree): the AN/I is not really the place for that...

As for reinstating "fluffery": I am not saying that the Toverster version was perfect (I agree: "defluffing" is needed). BUT: the other (=Gamesmasterg9/Grandpallama version) has obvious, and rather outrageous mistakes. (As I have mentioned above: the Swedish Minister of Defense

harakiri in Sweden, as anyone with the slightest knowledge about Swedish politics would know), Huldra (talk

) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To Drmies: I thank you so much for the illustrative edit. Kind of you. I’ll start by re-editing that chapter in the Talk page (tomorrow), so hopefully you would finish to review it while your coffee still is warm in the cup. It’s no excuse, but since I am not fluent in English I tend to be precise by doing the opposite, through over explaining. I’ll try to correct that. My paradoxical situation: since I have limited spare time, I do not have much possibility to indulge in serious revisions of my own texts, which would help me summarize, be more concise, thus clearer, I guess. Point taken about that my long collection of edits published all at once resulted in “a revert of serious magnitude”. Now I understand that perhaps I should have tried with one edit at the time, with the corresponding argumentation in separate sections of the Talk page. BTW, I have found this kind of investigative work quite exciting. I wish to have more time in the future to edit on more creative issues.

Då är Du en svensk läkare. Snälla, skulle Du inte också protestera mot den karikatyr som Swedhr artikeln gör av den aktuella svensk neutralitet samt “non-alignment” policy? Samt hjälpa mig att förklara här att Sveriges läkarförbund viste om Swedhrs existens redan 2015? Toverster (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To Grandpallama: Why I am posting HERE, you ask. It's because you indicated that to me. I asked, where is the ongoing discussion about the edits? You answered: “it's occurring right here”. Your attack ad hominem against me as new editor (unfounded tags COI, Single PA, etc.) seems rather aimed to divert from the main issues at stake. It won’t work. The you wonder how come that I know rules at WP. Anyone wondering about an editor go to the editor’s presentation. Anyone can read there [32]: “The first task for me was trying to understand the rules and intricate instructions about editing articles in Wikipedia.” I don’t mean to claim that I know them well. But learning I am also thanks to this discussion. You contradict yourself assuming that I knew “what to do” in addressing my complain. For it was you who proven to me that I was mistaken about “vandalism” (then I changed the headline). You know already my answers to you, ref. your “COI suspicions”. It’s all in this thread. Not such a thing. About how I know what COI is, it was after I saw it in Gammesmaster reverting summary. I found in Google a link to a WP list of abbreviations, with super links. How do I know about “the details of a specific AfD that occurred three years ago”? The info and link about that AfD is highlighted in a BAN at the very top of the article’s Talk page. The ban reads: “This article was nominated for deletion on 3 April 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. That ban “You can’t miss” each time you start to edit the Talk page.

Instead of asking things you already know, please comment on this instead, a statement that appears in the lead:

“the views presented by it (SWEDHR) are consistently in line with those of the Russian government.” (No WP:RS given in the article to support that statement).

The English dictionary says “consistently” is synonymous of “always”. So, just how truthful that fabricated statement results when confronted with what instead happens in reality?:

On October 13, 2019, SWEDHR publicly condemned the Russian government for the veto that Russia issued to block a resolution proposed by the UK and other EU countries in the UN Security Council. SWEDHR called it “deplorable”.

Now you will suspect-ask me, how did I find about that? Answer: Because the name and link to that publication is given in the Organization section of the current version of the Wikipedia article on SWEDHR which I (and hopefully you) are analyzing. In the report is reproduced the SWEDHR critical statement on Russia also published in Twitter. Toverster (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. To Grandpallama: (please other recent commentators look at this too)

About your contradiction-of-terms wondering that in my short time in Wikipedia I have been concentrated only in this article. What much else one can expect? And it’s not totally so. In this short time I have also created the Swedish Medical Association article. I have already explained that I found this article, and got "shocked", when I was doing research for the SMA draft. But certainly, my free time is limited. And I wish to also contribute in the Swedish encyclopedia. Probably I will be able to diversify my edits towards other themes in the future, after a corrected, truthful article, may be reached.

On the other hand, if it so the case that Wikipedia will FORCE me to edit simultaneously other articles for otherwise I will be suspected as a 'COI' troll or something, then Wikipedia may not be a thing for me. Have a good night. Toverster (talk) 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm,

WP:RS, Huldra (talk

) 22:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree: a) My extensive texts. Sorry for that, I’ll try to be brief. b) Arbitrarily “COI” tagging by one user not enough to revert an edit (El_C) c) As proposed by Huldra, the discussion of the edits’ content should continue (or begin, actually) in the article’s Talk page. d) Posting all corrected edits at once, was inconvenient. Proposed solution: to post one edit at the time (with rationale given in Talk page, separately). Either I do the edit myself, and/or preferably by Huldra who is experienced editor, and/or monitored by Drmies, El_C, and Huldra, to prevent ‘reflex reverting’ (e.g. by Gamesmasterg9). e) Some notes in References (e.g. on Prof. Romelsjö, remarked by Drmies) contain info relevant to the subject’s activities, but not the article. It was intended to refute Gamesmaster G-9 untrue version of a supposedly completely unknown group of professors/doctors in Sweden. I’ll review.

I disagree (or regret): f) “Only Purpose”, as the central focus in the criticism of my editing, should take into account my short editing-time and the importance of the proposed changes, and not be used to disregard fact-based changes. This necessity is independent of me as editor. g) That (except Huldra), no references have been made here to the facts and arguments exposing the false and equivocal statements, and fake references in the contested article. Grandpallama led me to believe that this was the place for such discussion, while no one had countered my arguments in the Talk page.

I kindly ask to comment my suggestion in d) above. If we could agree at least on that proposal, we may very well declare end of this episode here. Thanks. Toverster (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

To Gamesmaster G-9:

Do take note of administrator El_C's comment above, that edits should not be reverted solely on the base of COI allegations. For the record, I’ll post it in your Talk page.

Regarding your “revelation” in this thread about a SWEDHR page with links to rebuttals to 4 right-wing media in a 5-years period: That info was already given, with further details and references, in the Section “The 2017 Controversies” of the article’s version [33] that you have been arbitrarily reverting since 19 Feb 2020. There it reads:

“The domestic and international spreading by Russian governmental channels of SWEDHR's ‘alternative views’ on a variety of geopolitical issues, have also elicited critical comments in the European mainstream media. For instance Der Spiegel,[31] Le Figaro,[32], De Groene Amsterdammer, [33] and Dagens Nyheter. [34] SWEDHR has published its respective rebuttals to those media in The Indicter. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]  In its replies, SWEDHR's has insisted that the criticism of those media does not address the arguments or the results of the doctors’ investigations. That, “apparently, for them,  it is not about what we say, but rather to whom we are saying it.” SWEDHR has repeatedly argued that the right to express opinions in any media “regardless of frontiers”, is guaranteed by Article 19 in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. [40]“

You should have also referred that in comparison with those 4 media reports in the 5-year period, there were many more media in the same period 2015-2020 reporting SWEDHR views in a non-critical way. Most recently in a full-page of Sweden’s largest mainstream newspaper Aftonbladet (Feb 26, 2020). Toverster (talk) 16:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You are still producing massive walls of unreadable text, and you still haven't answered the primary question, which is a simple yes or no: are you a member of SWEDHR? Grandpallama (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

On 4 May 2017, Gamesmasterg9 created the WP:ED section “Accusations of pro-Russian propaganda” in the article on SWDHR, whose inaccurate content is still up after almost 3 years. None of these extensive disrupted edits were previously presented/discussed in the Talk page. Gamesmaterg9 edits in cursive:

1. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to the Swedish Medical Association.” Which was not true. Instead, the Swedish Medical Association journal Läkartidningen had already in 2015 reported on SWEDHR stances [34] and even published a link to the organization’s homepage.

2. “As of April 2017, the organization is unknown to Amnesty International”. That’s neither true. Instead, on 11 of March 2016, Amnesty International Swedish section’s officer Amy Hedenborg emailed KILTR journalist Erik Sandberg, addressing the content of a Swedhr article published in The Indicter. The even was broadcasted by [KILTR] 17 March 2016 [35]. The email’s full text given also in The Indicter. [36]

4. For his edit “The causes taken up by the organization have a strong pro-Russian bias”, Gamesmasterg9 didn’t provide any WP:RS. Because there is no MSM source containing such straight accusation, let alone the adjectivity created by Gamesmasterg9.

5. Gamesmasterg9’s edit “(Swdhr) have compared the violent clashes in Odessa that led to the deaths of 46 pro-Russian activists to the Reichstag fire” is a blunt lie! That is not a statement by Swedhr. The facts: A tweet image titled “what history shall remember”, originally published in The Professors’ Blog in June 2014 [37] before the existence of SWEDHR), mentions that in 1933 Hitler blamed the Reichstag fire on Russian Comintern “communist agitators” (WP article “Reichstag fire” [38]), while in 2014, Carl Bildt, then Foreign Minister of Sweden, blamed the Odessa fire on “Russian thugs” [39].

6. Gamesmasterg9’s edit of same date, “Their sister publication The Indicter has previously claimed that Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian army, and not by pro-Russian rebels”, instead of giving a reference/link leading to The Indicter, he posted a reference to the WP article [40] in which neither Swedhr nor The Indicter are mentioned. Whereas what instead it is said in The Indicter op-ed article (author not member of Swedhr) reads: “This Dutch commission stresses, with other words, that while it was able to conclude that flight MH17 was shot down by a Russian-made missile, the commission would or could not determine who pulled the trigger.”

7. Gamesmasterg9’s edit: “Dr. Ferrada de Noli was interviewed by Russian media about his view that the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack of April 4, 2017 was possibly caused by the opposition groups and not the Syrian government”. But the DN article given by Gamesmasterg9 as source [41] does not say that Ferrada de Noli referred to the Khan Shaykhun incident, but instead about the general possibility that oppositional forces have access to chemical weapons (in the Russian media interview he cited MSM reports and the UN investigator Carla del Ponte which concluded the possession of chem weapons by the rebels). DN printed even the reasons given by the interviewed doctor: “- I don't think President Bashar al-Assad does. It would be politically illogical. The Syrian government is winning the war now. Nuclear weapons only serve the opposition.” (– Jag tror inte att president Bashar al-Assad gör det. Det skulle vara politiskt ologiskt. Den syriska regeringen vinner kriget nu. Kemvapen tjänar bara oppositionen.)

8. Referring to the White Helmets video investigated by Swedhr, Gamesmasterg9 posted in the Wikipedia article: “An examination of the video cited in the article as evidence revealed that it was actually a video of a chemical attack in Sarmin from March 2015.” The edit suggests that Swedhr has given another date for the videos. That is complete deceiving. SWEDHR had clearly stated in the publications [42] [43] that the videos are from 2o15, and that Swedhr discovered those videos only in March 2017 thanks a HRW retrospective report.

9. “A group of medical specialists in the US and UK examined the (White Helmets) video and stated that it was impossible to conclude that it was staged, as claimed by SWEDHR”. Gamesmasterg9’s source is an article [44] in the site Coda Story, an online publication partner with “Eurasianet, which Wikipedia describes as “formerly run by the Central Eurasia Project of the Open Society Foundations. Nevertheless, the “group of medical specialists in the US and UK” turns being only one identified doctor by name, four others “voices” without any identification whatsoever. The ironic being that the conclusions of the group of mainly anonymous doctors do not challenge the main in the Swedhr conclusions, according to the analysis (author not Swedhr-related) “On Coda Story's Attempt to Discredit SWEDHR”: [45]

10. Gamesmasterg9: “SWEDHR carried out a similar campaign in April 2018, after the Douma chemical attack, which caused the left-wing Swedish magazine ETC to compare it to InfoWars.“ Another plain misrepresentation! What ETC actually wrote was: “the Russian and Syrians are brought help by conspiration theorists like Inforwars, journalists and bloggers critical to US imperialism.” ETC does not mention SWEDHR in comparison or association with Infowars. The mention to SWEDHR in the ETC article was instead a quote from an image posted on Twitter by De Noli’s personal account. The texts based in an article authored by De Noli on 1 February 2018, two months before the Douma attack! [46]

Regarding the actual position taken by SWEDHR after the reported incident in Douma: Swedhr issued on 13 April 2018 a statement in support of the US-based organization Physicians for Human Rights, requesting an investigation that “should include collection of environmental & biological samples.” To which Swedhr added “independent medical assessment of treated patients & hospital records” . [47]

11. Finally, Gamesmasterg9’s edits collection says: “SWEDHR also tried to cast doubt on the Russian government's responsibility for the 2018 poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal” For which he gives two sources. An examine of his sources reveal that what was really said by The Indicter editor: In source fPlus.se it reads as his only statement: “It seems absurd that Russia would have sent a death squad to England to risk a big international incident“ (Det verkar absurt att Ryssland skulle ha skickat en dödspatrull till England och riskera en stor internationell incident). It refers to the big international incident represented by the expulsion of dozens Russians diplomats. It does not said that Russia would not have “responsibility”. Only that it is absurd to do such a thing in view of the big international repercussion. [48] In source DN, this is only what the newspaper reported on the interview in reference to the Skripal item: "- No clear evidence has been provided that Russia is behind it," he says, and continues: - History has several examples of similar events. Like when Britain wrongly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and went to war, despite knowing better.” (“– Det har inte lagts fram några tydliga bevis för att det är Ryssland som ligger bakom, säger han, och fortsätter: – Historien har flera exempel på liknande händelser. Som när Storbritannien felaktigt påstod att Irak hade massförstörelsevapen och gick till krig, trots att man visste bättre”). [49]

NOTE: With the above I end my edits in this thread. Thanks.

Toverster (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I am not calling for any action, unless this behaviour rings a bell with anyone. I got an off-wiki email today from User:ARzip‬, asking me to browse and check Life imprisonment in Australia; a topic in which I have no interest at all, I don't seem even to have gnomed that page. ARzip has made precisely zero edits in English WP. Narky Blert (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

User:TheARzip has edited User:ARzip's Talk Page: diff 1 and diff 2, and has made no other edits; which suggests that there may be more than something that is obvious to the eye. Narky Blert (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears they sent a bunch of e-mails to other users, four of which responded on the user talk page, and they immediately commented the responses out. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that may be the 3rd or 4th email I've had like that? all unconnected. I ignored the others, except for the one who was offering $ for assistance from someone with a high edit count. I was told the email addy of a team who are interested in that sort of thing, forwarded the email, and went back to doing something which felt more worthwhile. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I was one of ARzip's email recipients. On the off-chance that someone reading this doesn't know, it's unwise to reply to a WP email from someone you don't trust; if you do, the recipient has your email address. All the best, Miniapolis 23:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Amen to that. Anyone mind if I block both their emails? Should these emails be forwarded to ArbCom?Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Email access should definitely go, but I don't think this merits ArbCom involvement (yet). Miniapolis 23:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think I've only had two offwiki email exchanges: one when it turned out that another editor and I had grown up about a mile apart and we chose to swap stories in a better forum; and another when I got caught up in a sitewide

WP:STEWARD, and called for help from an admin who knows me because I didn't know who else to turn to. Miniapolis is right: practice safe hex. Narky Blert (talk

) 23:40, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I received one of the emails, and replied on their talk page. I agree that it's appropriate to block email address for this user.-gadfium 01:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if I am entitled to post here, but I also got an email this morning from ARzip's which requested that the tables on List of prisons in Australia need to be 'reduced' - I have looked the tables and these seem OK. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just received two notices from an editor called Vetop thanking me for two edits that I made to List of prisons in Australia in 2018. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Cowdy001, it is entirely appropriate for you to comment here. You are providing useful information rather than stirring up trouble. Thank you for your input. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I've blocked Vetop, TheARzip, and ARzip for sockpuppetry, as they are  Confirmed to each other. Weirdly, they are also  Confirmed to Poniaki from this SPI. I'm not sure what the explanation is there, might be a VPN. But in any case they can't be using three accounts to email people and send spam "thanks" notifications, and it sounds like they're definitely socks of someone. ST47 (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

They're confirmed to Idwaa. Mwvr seems to be another SPA at that article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Were the e-mails complaining about edits made by Mwvr? Because that would seem to indicate that Mwvr isn't involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The email I received was civil and general, and did not imply any particular problem. The summary in my original post was complete. Narky Blert (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)