Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 23 May 2009

Archives

ME/CFS, Basic Income

Template:HEC userbox 2

Guido den Broeder provisionally unblocked by Arbitration Committee

Having demonstrated good faith by contributing to Dutch Wikibooks for three months, the Arbitration Committee has decided to unblock Guido den Broeder on this date subject to periodic review. Additionally, Guido is instructed to edit within the following restrictions:

1. Topic ban on CFS topics on all articles and talk pages for one year.
2. Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against by uninvolved admins for one year.

Guido is encouraged to develop his contributions in other areas. Guido is strongly cautioned against making legal threats, and should strive to avoid antagonizing editors of our collaborative project. POV pushing, legal threats, or social experiments will result in a ban by the Committee via a motion.

Happy editing. Cool Hand Luke 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Cool Hand Luke. Could you please inform me about the reason for this rather peculiar topic ban? The rest does not present a problem as I have not pushed, threatened or experimented before, and like all good users I am not supposed to do anything like that anyway. As a member of the Harmonious Editing Club, I was on 1RR voluntarily before and I intend to keep at it long after the year has passed, with a clear preference for 0RR. Fair reviews are always welcome. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice to GDB and talk page watchers: I have posted a question to CHL about the above exchange here. Verbal chat 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, could someone please restore the following userspace pages that were deleted during my absence?

• User:Guido den Broeder/Articles
• User:Guido den Broeder/Menu
• User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation
• User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer
• User:Guido den Broeder/Sandbox
• User:Guido den Broeder/Toolbox
• User:Guido den Broeder/Visit

Thanks in advance, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, Guido. (Perhaps you remember the alias "Dylan620" from the late March ban review?) Also, I believe I should drop by to give you this:

		The Excellent User Page Award
		I always did like your userpage. Shame that all your subpages had to be deleted after you were banned; good thing they're restored! --Dylan620 Efforts · Toolbox 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dylan. I do remember you, and agree with you that Durova should be resysopped. :) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You were blocked for disruption

Guido, you were blocked for disruption. It's not a tendentious statement to say so. As I told you, the community ban was procedurally correct and was the result of bona fide problems you've had with the community. We voted to allow you one last chance. This is your chance.

Rather than argue about how disruptive you were in the past, I would instead focus on not being disruptive going forward. Cool Hand Luke 16:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, but apart from unhelpful (no evidence of disruption was ever provided) that's not what you said. You claimed problematic editing. If I am to do better, I need to know what the problem was, so I can avoid it in the future. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

For example (and as I told you in the past by email), you edit warred on CFS, even though you have real-world and minority views on that topic (some would also cite COI and POV, but I'm focusing sharply on your edit warring), and even though you had earlier told the community that you would abide with a 1RR. This is why you're topic banned from CFS. We would likely reinstate the community ban for any renewed edit warring.

My advice is to forget the past and move forward by contributing on less controversial topics, perhaps in chess. Over time you might be able to ease into other areas. That's my hope, anyway. Cool Hand Luke 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I did nothing of the kind, as I already explained by mail to which you had to reply. Nor was this claimed by any of the users that banned me. I did not present any minority views as mainstream at any one time either. You do not even know what my views are (clearly you have not read any of my publications on the topic), nor do you know which majority and minority exist. So I am kindly asking you to tone down. I am willing to let the past the past, but that requires that you don't keep bringing it up either. I will defend myself against defamation. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the users who community banned you mostly cited your "experiment," which was the disruptive straw that broke the camel's back. The community ban was approved by both the 2008 and 2009 Arbitration Committees, and it's not defamation for me to say so. Users may complain about your past or current behavior; this topic is not off limits. You, after all, are the one who asked about the topic ban, which was presented as a condition of unblock. All that we ask is that you abide with it.

Again, happy editing. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in view of what you now see as the reason for the community ban (not a good reason, since I did not conduct any experiment), the question stands: why the topic ban? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido, your "experiment" notice was quite disruptive. We are a volunteer collaborative project. Implying that you're toying with us for your own ends poisons the environment. The committee twice endorsed that community ban; it was well-justified.

The topic ban is due to edit warring, as I said above. Cool Hand Luke 17:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I made no such implication, people here simply misunderstood my essay while nobody had a problem with it at meta.

You said, yes, but you failed to demonstrate that any editwarring by me occurred. In your example it is clear that Sciencewatcher and WLU were editwarring, by reverting my every edit, but I was not: my edits were constructive; they were improvements to various parts of the text, and I furthermore made great efforts to find compromises. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Guido, that was an edit war. You may have not reverted, but challenging, flagging, and removing sources in preference for particular POVs is classic edit warring. Others were also engaged, but you've had a long history of edit warring in that topic. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks, but not according to the prevailing definition of editwarring. POV-pushing is a different issue entirely, of which I believe I am not guilty either. Please specify what you perceive this POV to be, and which of my edits you think were endangering the neutrality of the article. Maybe we can then get to the heart of this. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Global cooling

I've removed this . Try to stay off the soapbox. Consensus does not mean that we bend over backwards to incorporate things stated by a single editor that everyone else on the article disagrees with. That is not (unfortunately for your argumentation) a sign of owning or lack of consensus seeking - but rather testament to your argumentation being unconvincing.

As a side-comment i suggest that you look up what a state climatologist is, and what questions the survey asked. (hint i (still) agree with most of the answers. You should also try to actually listen to what people have been telling you on the talk-page. Since we really have tried to explain it to you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You think that the consensus that you had between the three of you will forever determine the content of the article. That is ownership. Instead, consensus-building is supposed to be a continuous process. It does indeed mean that you have to bend over backwards to accomodate a new participant in the discussion, so that the possibility that a new and better consensus emerges is not ruled out beforehand. You do that not by ad nauseam reiterating the mention of the old consensus, but by constructively responding to the input of the new participant. Removing my talk page contribution, where I provide evidence to support what I know to be correct, is the ultimate sign of ownership, so by this action you prove my observation correct. Meanwhile, you do not even notice that the current article text does not support your view. All you see is an edit by a new participant, so you (well, William in this case) rush to revert. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well - with that attitude, i'm sorry to say, you are not going to further much consensus-building or change people's opinions. Have a nice day. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

My attitude is that of someone who prefers constructive collaboration. I fear, however, that you are correct. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)