Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:03, 19 December 2008

Archives

ME/CFS, Basic Income

Template:HEC userbox 2

but may still come visit when you least expect it

• Since there is apparently a free pass for other users to modify my talk page contributions, I am sadly no longer able to respond on talk pages other than my own.
• I am currently prohibited from editing my user page. Therefore, the information is not up-to-date.

Ban proposal

Just so you are aware, I have contacted a checkuser – here – to investigate whether or not you have been, contra to policy, using other accounts to support/re-enforce your own point of view on articles. Seeing as you are the subject of a ban proposal and I have a small feeling (some of which is explained in the diff I supply above to the CUs talk page) that you have, I felt it necessary to do so. I will make my judgement, support or oppose, partially upon that. Regards, Caulde 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, Caulde. Feel free to do so, but it'll probably be declined. I've asked for a CU on myself before, when it was claimed that I was the same as another user, which has happened more than once, but they wouldn't do it. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that they didn't want to wait for any kind of investigation. Thanks again for the effort, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have not followed this process closely, and I have never edited an article with Guido den Broeder. I have seen some of his comments in discussion on the Village Pump, and found those comments will thought out and insightful....and I noted that those comments seemed to differ from the majority views in interesting ways. I do not understand the details of the controversies that relate to his ban, but the process I see on the AN/I discussion impresses me as the lynching of a user who has made himself unpopular by criticising majority views with intelligence, an intelligence applied in pointed argument. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Community ban

Per the discussion at , I've indefinitely community-banned you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Admin has not provided a reason for an indefinite block. Bans are not blocks, and the decision was taken before any evidence was presented and before the users who have been invited to comment had a chance to do so.

Decline reason:

As of this writing, there is indeed a community consensus at WP:ANI#The bigger picture - banning? for your ban. You were also able to present your side of the argument there. I find that the block was correct as an enforcement of that ban. It can be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. —  Sandstein  11:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You can't conclude that there is consensus before people that have been invited to comment have had a chance to do so. But the ban itself is appealed at Arbcom; what matters here is that no reason has been provided for enforcement. Blocking admin is clearly emotionally involved. Btw, I'd appreciate it if a reviewer would take more than two seconds to investigate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After reviewing the ANI thread, I'd feel that I was inappropriately acting against consensus if I unblocked you. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(ec) I don't see how you can come to that conclusion before anyone that has been invited to comment, i.e. the users that know me and have worked with me, have had a chance to do so. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I find this ban bizarre and unfair, and cannot actually pinpoint a rationale behind it, or at least behind the consensus that led to it. It all seems quite nebulous, and it appears that people saw the user-page issue as an opportunity to pile up various grievances from the past. You strike me as unique, not disruptive. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Cosmic Latte. You could do me a favour by posting my appeal at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. I've emailed them, but the last time I did my email got lost and after waiting a long time I still had to ask someone to post it for me. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

See also

• WP:ANI#Improper use of MfD page?
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#Attack page
• User talk:Jimbo Wales#User page
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Guido den Broeder/Wikipedia, the Social Experiment
• Misplaced Pages:DRV#User:Guido den Broeder.2FWikipedia.2C the Social Experiment
• User_talk:Rlevse#Request for CU check seicer | talk | contribs 12:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Blocking admin removing my talk page contribution, where I asked him not to editwar over another user's (correct) spelling. His decision to ban me followed immediately after. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Text of ban appeal

To whom it may concern,

A decision to community-ban me was taken prematurely, before anyone who has been invited to comment had been able to do so, and before any kind of evidence was presented let alone discussed. Even so, various users had already objected to imposing a ban, presenting numerous arguments.

Note also that the decision was taken while the issue that led to the proposal to ban was still under review and was discussed with Jim Wales, which the ban now renders impossible.

The decision was taken by an admin who is clearly emotionally involved.

I have constructively contributed to Misplaced Pages for a long time, and even while I am now mostly occupied elsewhere, I'd like to continue to do so on occasion. My additions to the encyclopedia have always found considerable support.

I am also always willing to improve my behaviour, as I hope everyone is. I am however not aware of having caused any kind of disruption and have seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim. On the contrary, I believe that I have been extremely patient with users that have incessantly harassed and stalked me and purposely keep adding false information to medical articles to promote their opinion that a whole range of neurological diseases don't really exist or are psychosomatic in nature.

I believe that I have always responded positively to any suggestions, and I have offered to do so again.

I wish to add that I have enjoyed working with a lot of users here. The users complaining about me have not attempted to work with me at any time; many of them I have never met or only briefly in passing.

Highest regards,

Prof.drs. Guido den Broeder

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Guido_den_Broeder

Results

• The Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Supervision COI Noticeboard confirms that supervision does not imply a conflict of interest, where users who removed my addition of the source had stated it was and subsequently claimed that my editing was disruptive.
• The Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Journal_of_Mental_Health RS Noticeboard confirms that the Journal of Mental Health is a reliable source, which was contested by users who removed my addition of this source and subsequently claimed that my editing was disruptive.
• The Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nivel RS Noticeboard confirms that NIVEL is a reliable source, which was contested by users who removed my addition of this source and subsequently claimed that my editing was disruptive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Process

• Note that I have blanked my RFC/AN/evidence page, but will be using the space to put together my original intent of a much clearer and better organized set of diffs and sections as evidence. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I appreciate that. How do you intend to go from there? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When I have the time, I will continue to work on a coherent set of evidence that will demonstrate why I think you are a problematic editor who does not contribute to the project in a manner that is in keeping with the community. I will base this in part on content disruption, as well as general issues interacting with the community at large. Ultimately, once I have assembled something that appears to be coherent, as convincing as I can make it and complete, I will probably post it on AN and alert everyone who was interested in the ANI posting. The other option is the arb hearing I expect in the future; it'll depend on what gets here first. The holiday season and the neglect of real-life concerns both work to delay any final product.

Incidentally, I don't understand why you removed my comments from the above posting - for uninvolved editors, I would think the context important. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 15:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe uninvolved editors are quite capable of assessing the context by following the links, rather than to have it explained to them by a deeply involved editor. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you once again Guido for stepping into the heated debate on the ANI noticeboards with your helpful comments surrounding the edit conflict. I really appreciated that. Here's a barnstar for your efforts. ;) Cheers dude (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer