Requests for comment/Administrators are redefining Swedish Wikipedia and keep making up new rules

The following request for comments is closed. No traction. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

There is this small group of administrators who call themselves "the established users"(which apparently doesn't apply to me even though I have been registered since 2010) who go around redefining what Wikipedia is and ignoring the fundamental principles about NPOV and letting anyone edit. They just made up a new rule and banned me for 6 months accordingly.

It started when I was about to make the controversial article about en:Sweden Democrats on Swedish Wikipedia live up to NPOV, which apparently was not allowed. It is a controversial subject, but the English version has handled this perfectly by having both "main views". In summary there was some right wing extremists when they party was founded about 30 years, one side thinks this is still really important others recognize that the party has changed since then and want to focus on today's issues(which is presented in the English version, but not the Swedish version). This request is not about this article, but about the admins and their own rules, but some other basic facts about the issue could be needed. They are currently leading the polls as the single largest party and the only party that criticizes the size of Sweden's immigration which is about 6 times that of Germany's per capita. An outside perspective on the issues can be read in the New York Times Sweden's Self-Inflicted Nightmare.

I created a long discussion of the discussion page of the article where I have suggested various ways to make the top section more neutral. We made some progress and the top section is better than when we started, but it is still not neutral. Not every suggestion I made was great, and I had missed some perspectives, but what now got me banned was these two suggestions: 1. "The Sweden Democrats has _officially_ enforced a zero tolerance towards racism and extremism in the party[A]"(which no one outside Swedish Wikipedia would deny) 2. It should be stated who the author of government report on the party was(en:Bengt Westerberg, party leader for one of the Sweden Democrats main opponents). There is nothing controversial about this yet I got banned and although they claim that this was about something else, everyone knows it really was about making the article NPOV.

The tactic used by the admins Averater, Lindansaren and Adville was to ignore arguments and revert changes to the article on false claims of NPOV, then ban me for edit warring and obstruction even though they were involved in the conflict. They have never been able to show a clear case of editing warring(and everyone who reads the edit log sees that clearly this is not case). Then they made a couple of straw man arguments and off topic discussion and when the discussion had reach and impressive length they banned me for "having created a too long discussion". Before that they tried to ban me for sock puppetry(which of course turned out to be false) and various rules they just made up. I would like to you to comment on the following rules they made up.

  • By just saying "no" without motivation, any user can block consensus from forming for an indefinite time and thereby blocking any edits and new perspectives being added to the article
"Det finns ingen tidsgräns. Om det inte kommer accept på denna textversion från tunga debattörer här så kommer jag motsätta mig den oberoende av hur lång tid som gått. Yger (diskussion) 28 november 2015 kl. 11.06 (CET) " (There is no time limit. Unless someone explicitly writes accept on this version I will revert this edit)" What is Wikipedia:Silence and consensus?
  • If you edit a controversial article you also have to edit a non controversial article
Which I have but shouldn't be required anyway.
  • It's perfectly fine for admins to blaim other users for having an agenda, but the opposite results in a ban
I am in no way associated with any political party

I have made some troll edits in the past, but never about this subject. They have never made a solid case for their ban and each time they have tried, they have failed miserably and used the weirdest argument. New admins never take a look on the actual case, and instead trust the other "established users'" perspective. They talk about how I have attacked them as a group is threat to their ways(which is never defined in any guideline). --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article, sv:Sverigedemokraterna, is by far the most contested one on svwp with a discussion page of almost a million characters. Since long it is therefor required some stricter procedure to enter information of any of the key contraversial facts: a consensus much have been reached on the discussion page before any changes is allowed in the article itself. Immunmotbluescreen did not respect this way of working and when told of it responded with personal attacks. After a long discussion on our page where we discsuss this type of behaviour he was given a six month ban for "frequent personal attack and not accepting our way of working, and not bettering after several feebacks/warnings/shorter bans".Yger (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)