User talk:12u

Hi 12u! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at 27 Club that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you! — Goffman82 (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Goffman82: Hi. I have been using a setting that marks all edits as minor as default because my edits are mostly typo corrections. Sometimes I forget to remove the minor mark and I apologize for that. I will be more cautious moving forward. Thanks for reminding me :) 12u (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at Subjekt, you may be blocked from editing. Sveinkros (talk) 14:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sveinkros: A neutral point of view is not "promotional or advertising material". If my goal were to promote Subjekt, I would hardly have devoted a third of the article to criticism. Your edits replace established and reliable sources – such as the Great Norwegian Encyclopedia, and Journalisten – with alternative media sources used for strong negative claims.

You have previously been banned from the Norwegian Wikipedia for similar editing behavior. My intention was to balance what had become a clearly non-neutral article, yet you reverted those changes. If this continues, I will request administrative review and possible page protection.

For the record, I have no connection with Subjekt or Choi, and I personally do not support them. However, Wikipedia's purpose is to maintain a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia, not to promote or attack any subject. 12u (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

That is a blatant lie. I have never been banned from anywhere. I only now noticed that you months ago abused your administrative tool to block me from one article on a local project where I wasn't even active at the time, weeks after engaging in normal editing and discussion relating to Subjekt, a far-right website. The actual reason appeared to be revenge for editing the article on your favorite blog on the English Wikipedia. I invite anyone to look at those specific well-argued and well-sourced constructive contributions to the talk page and article on that project. You have systematically misrepresented sources and engaged in harrassment of me as well as promotional editing. I have also been targeted by the owner of the website on social media, who has tried to recruit editors to skew the article. I consider filing a complaint against you under the Universal Code of Conduct mechanism for your abuse of administrative tools on that project to gain an advantage in a content dispute, in apparent revenge for editing articles on far-right alternative media on another project in a way that you either personally/politically disapprove of, or may have a conflict of interest related to. It's not the first time Norwegian Wikipedia editors have tried to minimize criticism of far right outlets in Norway, as other editors have noted here (Talk:Document.no).

On the English Wikipedia, where I've been a Wikipedian for about a decade longer than you, we have rules and procedures, and your behavior is not acceptable here. You are the one replacing the article with a clearly biased and promotional version, and engaging in edit warring. --Sveinkros (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sveinkros: Referring to Subjekt as my "favorite blog" is a baseless and unserious accusation. I have explicitly stated that I do not support the outlet or its editor, and my edits have reflected an effort to maintain neutrality, not promotion.

Multiple users and administrators on NO:WP, including myself, have previously raised concerns about your editing behavior (2025, 2024). The pattern of hostility and personal accusations continues here. You are the only one engaging in harassment in this exchange. Given your repeated assumptions of bad faith and refusal to discuss content constructively, I see little point in continuing this discussion further.

Also, account age does not equate to legitimacy or authority – adherence to Wikipedia’s content and conduct policies does. I will let administrators on English Wikipedia evaluate this situation if it continues. 12u (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@12u: Right, let's get to the bottom of this.

On the talk page of Document.no (an article I haven't really edited much) User:Newslinger (an experienced editor) correctly pointed out that while many good, reliable sources exist describing that outlet as far-right, those were conspicuously missing from the Norwegian Wikipedia article. This isn't an isolated case. On the Norwegian project, a small cluster of editors have repeatedly removed or watered down reliably sourced criticism of several far-right alternative media websites such as Document.no, Resett.no, and now Subjekt.

Another highly telling example, and one that is particularly relevant to Subjekt, is Curtis Yarvin, one of the "thinkers" Subjekt has promoted in Norway, as noted by the reputable centrist publication Agenda Magasin (). Yarvin is straightforwardly described as far-right here on the English Wikipedia, reflecting the clear consensus among reliable sources both internationally and in Norway. Yet on the Norwegian Wikipedia, a handful of editors have systematically gone through multiple articles to remove that label entirely, even where it was explicitly supported by reliable sources. Notice how the lead section of the Norwegian version of the Yarvin article now focuses almost entirely on presenting him in as positive or apologetic a light as possible, a stark contrast both to our neutral and source-based description here on the English Wikipedia and to the mainstream Norwegian media coverage, which also describes him as far-right.

The same pattern is appearing here. Subjekt's article has been subject to a wave of whitewashing attempts. We've even seen documented attempts by the outlet's owner on Twitter and Facebook to recruit people to "fix" the article for him, a textbook case of WP:CANVASS and a conflict with WP:COI. He even referenced this in his "autobiography" where he devotes an entire chapter to me as a Wikipedia editor (I was flattered).

Our policies are clear: WP:NPOV and WP:V require that all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources be represented in proportion to their prominence. Wikipedia is not a platform for reputation management. Likewise, WP:EW explicitly warns against edit warring. If you disagree with how sources are presented, the correct approach is bring up your concerns on the article's talk page and seek WP:CONSENSUS, not to engage in edit warring, like you did. In fact, I see no attempt by you at all to discuss your proposed edits, only disruptive edit warring. You should consider yourself lucky you didn't get blocked for it.

You claim neutrality, but your repeated reversions and the selective replacement of well-established sources with self-referential or promotional ones are the opposite of what neutrality requires. If you believe there's bias in wording or balance, the appropriate path is to discuss and propose specific changes backed by reliable sources, not to whitewash the topic. This was exactly the constructive approach I took when I conscientiously argued that the blanket description of the outlet as "liberal" was politically biased and inconsistent with how the topic is covered in reliable sources on the Norwegian Wikipedia. The bullying environment that we Norwegians have long struggled with over there, a very small project that doesn't really much of a working governance structure, doesn't work here.

Finally, as someone who has edited for a long time across several language projects, I'd encourage you to take a step back and familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, particularly WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI. English Wikipedia's standards for sourcing and neutrality are stringent for a reason. We rely on verifiable, independent coverage, not personal views. --Sveinkros (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2025 (UTC)