No mention until:From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:19:59 +0200
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Appealing indefinite block
Dear Arbcom,
I am kindly asking for my block to be lifted temporarily for the sole purpose of filing, and participating in, a request for arbitration.
Yours sincerely,
Guido den Broeder
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:09:05 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Appealing indefinite block
Guido den Broeder,
Your email has been received by the Wikipedia English Arbitration Committee.
I'm not familiar with your situation. Have you requested the block be
reviewed on site. If so, and it has been denied, then perhaps you
should make the request to the Arbitration Committee by email for now.
Sydney
-----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:03:36 +0200
Subject: [Arbcom-l] New case: Indefinite block upon announcement of legal
action elsewhere
=== Indefinite block upon announcement of legal action elsewhere ===
I am kindly requesting a temporary unblock solely to enable my participation
in this Arbcom procedure.
==== Involved parties ====
*{{userlinks|Guido den Broeder}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Fram}}
*{{admin|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}
*{{admin|Sam Korn}}
*{{admin|Sandstein}}
*{{admin|Mangojuice}}
*{{userlink|Chaser}}
*{{admin|Carcharoth}}
*{{admin|Golbez}}
*{{admin|Davidruben}}
*{{userlink|Gmaxwell}}
*{{userlink|Robotje}}
*{{userlink|Art Unbound}}
*(Other) users participating at ANI and WP:NLT
;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
Arbcom notifying all parties would be greatly appreciated.
*
;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute
resolution]] have been tried
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guido_den_Broederhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&oldid=224984860]
Evidence presented to blocking admin, unanswered.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&oldid=224984860]
Unblock requests, denied.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&oldid=224984860]
Questions asked to reviewing admins, unanswered.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&oldid=224984860]
Notes regarding to statements made at ANI. Response only by Davidruben,
mainly consisting of a failed attempt to get me kicked from the Harmonious
Editing Club.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Complicated_legal_threat_situation]
Calls for reflection by [[User:Chaser|Chaser]] and
[[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] at ANI, unanswered.
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_legal_threats&oldid=224402946]
Calls for reflection by [[User:Golbez|Golbez]] and [[User:Gmaxwell]], at
[[WP:NLT]] talk, unanswered.
==== Statement by {Party 1} ====
Upon ANI report filed by Fram, I was immediately blocked indefinitely by
Future Perfect at Sunrise, who wrongly assumed that I had made a legal
threat. Block was executed while ANI discussion had not even started,
thereby prohibiting any defense there. Blocking admin failed to check back
and note my response on my talk page.
First reviewing admin [[user:Sam Korn|Sam Korn]] stated that I would not
have been blocked had I not brought the nl:Wikipedia dispute to
en:Wikipedia. I provided evidence that not I, but Oscar had done that, but
reviewing admin failed to check back and note my response.
Second reviewing admin Sandstein completely ignored first reviewing admin's
reasoning as well as evidence provided, and merely quoted policy, not
noticing that the dispute is is a nl:dispute so policy does not apply.
Reviewing admin failed to check back and note my response.
Third reviewing admin Mangojuice completely ignored first and second
reviewing admins' reasoning as well as evidence provided, wrongly assumed
that I had brought legal action to en:Wikipedia, and wrongly concluded
consensus to block at ANI (the discussion is still open). Admin failed to
check back and note my response.
The question put to the Arbcom is, '''whether legal action between
individual users relating to events on nl:Wikipedia does or does not warrant
an indefinite block on en:Wikipedia''', and to unblock if the answer is no.
'''
Added notes.
* Since neither I or Oscar is discussing or likely to discuss the content of
the nl:dispute on en:Wikipedia, unblocking does not seem to endanger
en:Wikipedia in any way (Gmaxwell's question).
* I find it disheartening to see several users state that legal action
against another user is unacceptable and calls for punishment. They seem not
to know that this is a basic human right. Except for Golbez on IRC, nobody
seems to have even remotely considered the possibility that there may be a
good reason for legal action, and that it might be the behaviour of the
other user that should be judged unacceptable.
* Users [[User:Robotje|Robotje]] and [[User:Art Unbound|Art Unbound]]
falsely suggest that a threat of physical violence was made. I am asking the
Arbcom to deal with this.
==== Clerk notes ====
:''This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.''
==== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0) ====
*
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:48:23 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] New case: Indefinite block upon announcement of
legal action elsewhere
This is actually a pretty interesting problem, but I'm not sure it requires
a case. It seems the issue revolves around GdB's comment on User:Oscar's
talk page, "I advice you to immediately undo your block of me on
nl:Wikipedia. See this as your last chance." I don't see this as a specific
threat of any sort; it could range from "I'm going to arbitration, and
that's a pain" to "I'm telling Jimbo on you" to "I'm getting lawyers after
you" to "I'm going to sit on your dog". What happened later on nl was a
legal threat, and warranted blocking there; but is vaguely alluding to the
possibility of making a legal threat on nl a blockable offense on en? Or are
legal threats a more global issue, and thus a legal threat ban should alway
be cross-wiki? I'd lean toward the latter interpretation, but NLT is a
specific site policy, not a Foundation policy.
----------
From: (Sam Korn)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:26:18 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] New case: Indefinite block upon announcement of
legal action elsewhere
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> This is actually a pretty interesting problem, but I'm not sure it requires
> a case. It seems the issue revolves around GdB's comment on User:Oscar's
> talk page, "I advice you to immediately undo your block of me on
> nl:Wikipedia. See this as your last chance." I don't see this as a specific
> threat of any sort; it could range from "I'm going to arbitration, and
> that's a pain" to "I'm telling Jimbo on you" to "I'm getting lawyers after
> you" to "I'm going to sit on your dog". What happened later on nl was a
> legal threat, and warranted blocking there; but is vaguely alluding to the
> possibility of making a legal threat on nl a blockable offense on en? Or are
> legal threats a more global issue, and thus a legal threat ban should alway
> be cross-wiki? I'd lean toward the latter interpretation, but NLT is a
> specific site policy, not a Foundation policy.
One of the reasons behind NLT is that it muddies legal waters to have
editing on Wikipedia ongoing. This is less the case when it is an
editor suing another editor, I suppose, but I think it does no good at
all for Wikipedia if an editor is suing another. We should not
condone or facilitate it in any way.
Here a user is using en.wikipedia to evade a block on nl.wikipedia --
he is continuing his behaviour at nl. I don't see any reason why we
should bury our heads in the sand and say that what happens at nl has
nothing to do with us, especially when the dispute is being brought
here.
--
Sam
----------
From: (Josh Gordon)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:52:33 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] New case: Indefinite block upon announcement of
legal action elsewhere
> Here a user is using en.wikipedia to evade a block on nl.wikipedia --
> he is continuing his behaviour at nl. I don't see any reason why we
> should bury our heads in the sand and say that what happens at nl has
> nothing to do with us, especially when the dispute is being brought
> here.
>
Yeah, it's rather like what that asshole Moulton is doing on wikiversity
etc.
--
--jpgordon ????
----------
From: (Sam Korn)
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:45:40 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] New case: Indefinite block upon announcement of
legal action elsewhere
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Josh Gordon wrote:
> Yeah, it's rather like what that asshole Moulton is doing on wikiversity
> etc.
Indeed. While obviously we can't go and demand that they stop
Moulton, Brandt and co. doing that stuff, if it descends into personal
attacks (as it undoubtedly will) there is every reason we can demand
its removal. A Wikimedia project should not become a forum for
attacks on Wikipedians.
--
Sam
----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:09:37 +0200
Subject: [Arbcom-l] *REMINDER* - New case: Indefinite block upon
announcement of legal action elsewhere
I would appreciate it if my submitted RfA would appear at WP:RFAR.
You can copy & paste from my talk if you want.
Regards,
Guido den Broeder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guido_den_Broeder----------
From: (Joseph Seddon)
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:43:15 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] An RFAR from a blocked user
Blocked User User:
<tr_1216063936631>Guido_den_Broeder<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guido_den_Broeder>,
has come onto the #wikipedia-medcab irc channel requesting an admin post his
request for arbitration. The issues is located contained at ANI
here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive446#Complicated_legal_threat_situation>and
the RFAR on his user talkpage is located
here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder#Request_for_arbitration>.
The ANI was not closed and i believe it was archived before a consensus was
achieved. I wanted to check whether proxying this request would be
acceptable or whether you wanted an arbclerk to do so. A speedy reply to
this with advice would be helpful.
Many Thanks
Joseph Seddon
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:37:20 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: RfA: don't forget side request/ from Guido den
Broeder
Forwarding email to arbcom mailing list.
Sydney
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guido den Broeder
Date: Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Subject: RfA: don't forget side request
To: FloNight
Please note that my RfA contains a side-request
"Users Robotje and Art Unbound falsely suggest that a threat of
physical violence was made. I am asking the Arbcom to deal with this."
which should also be addressed.
Regards,
Guido den Broeder
---
This e-mail was sent by user "Guido den Broeder" on the English
Wikipedia to user "FloNight". It has been automatically delivered and
the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From:(Guido den Broeder)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:16:05 +0200
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fw: Wikipedia e-mail
As suggested by Carcharoth, I am hereby forwarding Oscar's mail that led me to initiate legal action.
It contains several threats and false accusations.
Oscar furthermore indicates that he is not interested in resolving the dispute.
He demands that I withdraw my complaints against him and accept him as a mentor, or else.
My complaints are a.o. that he has falsely accused me of committing crimes, that he continuously defames and threatens me, that he is stalking me and invading my privacy, and that he is violating my attribution rights as an author.
Regards,
Guido den Broeder
----- Original Message -----
From: oscar van dillen
To: Guido den Broeder
Cc: De Arbitragecommissie van de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
2008/7/3 Guido den Broeder:
Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Wikipedia ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans.
Guido den Broeder
beste guido,
1. DEBLOKKERINGSVERZOEK: je schrijft "ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Wikipedia ongedaan te maken"
de reden van de blokkering is gegeven op wikipedia:blokkeringsmeldingen: Beslissing van de mentor: wegens [http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg_gebruiker:Oscar&diff=prev&oldid=12968434 stelselmatig medewerking weigeren en vals beschuldigen van de mentor] - verhogingsregel toegepast - is guido den broeder voor 3 maanden geblokkeerd. (zie ook [[Overleg_gebruiker:Oscar/Mentoraat_Guido_den_Broeder#Mijn_gebruikersruimte_-_verder_nader_overleg|de mentoraatspagina]])
*zie
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blo...wone_gebruikersop je deblokkeringsverzoek kan ik op dit moment niet ingaan, temeer omdat je email dreigende taal bevat.
mocht je gedeblokkeerd gaan worden door mij, dan zal dat pas mogelijk zijn na goed inhoudelijk overleg, voorlopig per skype of email, met je mentor: met mij dus.
2. DREIGING: je schrijft "Beschouw dit als je laatste kans"
ik vat dat op als een rechtstreekse persoonlijke bedreiging van de mentor, en vraag je dringend om dit per omgaande in te trekken dan wel toe te lichten en recht te zetten, anders overweeg ik een onmiddellijke verzwaring van de blokkering wegens bedreiging.
een kopie van deze email stuur ik naar de arbitragecommissie van de nederlandstalige wikipedia, die ik gedurende mijn mentoraat steeds op de hoogte houd en heb gehouden van de voortgang ervan.
MENTORTIP 1: hou onmiddelijk op met het vals beschuldigen en bedreigen van de mentor en trek je beschuldigingen en bedreigingen in
MENTORTIP 2: accepteer het mentoraat in plaats van tegen de waarheid te vechten, doorgaan op de oude weg zal je op wikipedia alleen maar nog langere blokkeringen opleveren
met vriendelijke groet,
oscar
----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:18:45 +0200
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fw: Wikipedia e-mail
I am hereby sending you my reply of July 3 to Oscar as well, since Art Unbound falsely claims that I announced a lawsuit, and Oscar's translation at Meta is incorrect.
Yours sincerely,
Guido den Broeder
----- Original Message -----
From: Guido den Broeder
To: oscarvandillen at wikimedia.org
Cc: arbcom-nl at lists.wikimedia.org ; Contactpunt Wikipedia NL
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
Rotterdam, 3 juli 2008
Geachte heer Van Dillen,
Gezien uw afwijzing van mijn laatste poging om ons conflict onder ons op te lossen deel ik u hierbij mede dat ik binnenkort aangifte tegen u zal doen bij justitie wegens onder meer laster, het wederrechtelijk toe?igenen van gezag, en het schenden van auteursrechten, alsook het aanzetten tot deze misdrijven.
Prof.drs. G. den Broeder
----------
Lapse in discussion until December----------
From: (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:23:35 -0800
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Copy of my ban appeal]
FYI
I'm slightly familiar with the situation. I don't intend to get
involved. The issue was discussed with me on my talk page, but I didn't
have anything to do with his block.
I have no very strong opinion about the case. My tentative assessment,
based on a review of his edit history and the concerns others have
raised about him, is that it's pretty amazing he's managed to last this
long.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Copy of my ban appeal
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:49:24 GMT
From: Guido den Broeder
To: Jimbo Wales
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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/User:Guido_den_Broederhttp://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Guido_den_Broeder---
This e-mail was sent by user "Guido den Broeder" on the English
Wikipedia to user "Jimbo Wales". It has been automatically delivered and
the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:33:45 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Moreschi motions - action needed
Thanks. Motion 1.3 now has 6 votes (out of 10, so a majority). Should we
declare it carried and close the discussion, or leave it open to see if
another proposal gets greater support?
Unrelatedly, there is a new request for arbitration (Guido den Broder) on
WP:RfAr as of this afternoon.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: mackensen (Charles Fulton)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:55:27 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Guido den Broeder
I've dramatically reduced the number of parties in that case and
notified the filer. A straightforward ban appeal shouldn't really need
any.
Charles
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Thanks. Motion 1.3 now has 6 votes (out of 10, so a
----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:33:23 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] 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 lead 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/User:Guido_den_Broederhttp://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Guido_den_Broeder-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:12:10 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Private info relevant to arbcom (Guido den Broeder)
The below is forwarded from User:Guido den Broeder at his request. He is
the subject of a ban appeal on the list as well as a related request pending
on-wiki.
Newyorkbrad
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guido den Broeder
Date: Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Subject: Private info relevant to arbcom
To: Newyorkbrad
Newyorkbread, you guessed right, there is private information involved here.
It concerns the allegation of legal threats.
I had to take legal action re a Wikipedian because he had hacked my website
and destroyed my database and emails. The action consisted of reporting him
to the police, with logs of his deed and a statement of my provider, and was
not preceded by a threat. I can send you the evidence if you want to see it
with your own eyes.
Policy requires, a bit unfair perhaps, that one refrains from editing during
that time, fortunately just a couple of days as it turned out, and I
followed that policy.
Since then, users keep bringing this up as evidence of my disruptive nature,
and I can't say anything in my defence because policy forbids that I reveal
this information. I have seen my reputation steadily going down because of
this, and nothing that I could do about it.
Regards,
Guido
---
This e-mail was sent by user "Guido den Broeder" on the English Wikipedia to
user "Newyorkbrad". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:53:22 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Fwd: Private info relevant to arbcom (Guido den
Broeder)
The community ban discussion is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_MfD_page.3FIn this thread, the requirements of WP:NLT were debated. Specifically, "it
is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been
resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal
channels." Guido apparently read this policy back in September, and was
trying to comply with it by suspending editing. He left an unusual sort of
vacation message:
"I am not available at the moment on this wiki. The reason is that I am
bringing charges involving another Wikipedian for hacking and sabotage. This
will probably take no more than a couple of days. For urgent matters,
contact me at meta or use email. I apologize for the inconvenience." - User
talk:Guido den Broeder
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=229423053Discussed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...e_legal_threatswhere Carcharoth weighed in generally supporting the proposition that it was
not a legal threat. Carcharoth seems to have tried to help this user
several times.
On this particular issue, I agree with Guido. Looks like a good faith
attempt at trying to comply with NLT, even if poorly executed.
That said, there are a stack of issues in his community ban, and many
participants didn't even mention legal threats. User seems to be a fringe
POV pusher with an uneven behavioral history. I don't know what to make of
his "experiment." I probably would have supported banning myself, but there
were perhaps more dissenting voices than I'm comfortable with. I'll have to
study how these sorts of requestions are handled.
Frank
----------
From: vassyana(Peter Casey)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:27:26 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Outstanding emails
Following the list at:
http://arbcom.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outstanding_e-mails1.Jehochman: "brewhaha at edmc.net" (19 Dec 08)
I would be agreeable to renaming the account and replacing the signatures.
It's an email address and I think this is well within the reasonable bounds
of a privacy request. Before commenting further, Carcharoth, what was your
take on the editor? What do you think is an appropriate response?
2.Guido den Broeder: "Ban appeal" (19 Dec 08)
I see no reason to naysay the community ban. This is obviously a long-term
disruptive user that, regardless of reason, has clearly failed to heed
feedback and learn from his blocks. He needs some time away from the wiki. I
wouldn't preclude him from a future appeal, but he obviously has exhausted
the community's patience for the time being.
3. Nicholas Longo: "Concerning e-mails" (21 Dec 08)
No comment at this time. I would like to hear from others that have more
experience with this kind of situation.
4.Marcus Dandrea: "Unblock Request" (22 Dec 08)
Could someone do a checkuser on User:Markdandrea and User:Mdandrea? No
comment until that step is taken.
5.Durova: "Fwd: Jossi" (22 Dec 08)
A CU is required on 83.203.93.165 and 67.202.1.188. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._User:Durovafora bit more context and information. No other comment at the moment.
Pete (Vassyana)
----------
From: (Deskana)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:17:25 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
It is with regret that I inform you that a request to review your ban was
rejected by the Arbitration Committee. Please visit the following link for
more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=259829445Apologies for the delay in sending this message.
Deskana
----------
From: (Deskana)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 20:31:18 +0000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
Someone from the Committee should respond to this. Since I have no official
role in the ban review process anymore, it doesn't seem appropriate for me
to respond to him.
Deskana
2009/1/6 Guido den Broeder
> Deskana,
>
>
> I see that you still have not posted my appeal of Dec 19.
>
> Since I was banned, a large number of users have re-emerged to protest, as
> I had, against the CFS articles taken hostage by a couple of uninformed
> editors pushing their pov. Those who have worked with me have also
> unanimously disagreed with my ban.
>
> They are invariably treated to the same type of insults and other nonsense
> as I had been for a very long time.
>
> This should make it clear to you that I had not been stubbornly and
> disruptively advancing a one-person view but that rather the opposite is
> true, that users like RetroS1mone are poisoning the atmosphere and damaging
> the encyclopedia, and that I have in fact been far more patient with them
> than others can bring themselves to.
>
> I implore you once again to follow due process and hear my appeal. With me
> absent, the situation is now rapidly escalating, something that I have
> always tried to prevent.
>
>
> Prof. drs. Guido den Broeder
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Guido den Broeder
> *To:* Deskana
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 30, 2008 2:21 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
>
> Below is not 'a request', but my appeal, which so far has not been posted
> let alone reviewed.
>
> I urge you to follow due process, and
>
> - post my appeal;
> - allow users that have worked with me to make a statement (rather than
> users that I've never met);
> - allow me, and users that have worked with me, the chance to respond to
> any allegations.
>
> Random canvassing has occurred to collect votes to ban, and procedures were
> hastily closed.
> Users that have worked with me, however, were not informed or (Jagra, see
> WLU's talk page) were mislead into believing that they could wait until
> January.
>
> Prof.drs. Guido den Broeder
----------
From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:50:02 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
Guido den Broeder,
The Committee has received your email requesting the appeal of your
ban. Generally, the Committee handles appeals of bans by email rather
than on site.
Sydney
----------
From: vassyana (Peter Casey)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:50:16 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
In my opinion, if he expects a return of any kind, he needs to clearly
express a few things:
1. That he understands, beyond the ZOMG-we're-in-a-Stanford-prison-to-him
reactions, why the community lost patience with him and what was wrong with
his previous behavior.
2. That he will adjust his behavior accordingly, including:
2a. Civilly accept the results of community discussions.
2b. Productively engage in talk-page discussions.
2c. Generally avoid all semblence of DE and POINTiness.
3. That he accepts any repeat problems will result in the restoration of the
ban.
4. That he is willing to engage in a mentoring relationship to help him
moderate his behavior.
For a somewhat shotgun but informative list of issues, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258970627In essence, he would need to show that the preventative purpose of the ban
is not required.
Thoughts?
Pete (Vassyana)
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:13:04 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
This is a good list of requirements. Guido doesn't seems to show any
awareness that he did anything wrong at all. I suppose we could ask him
what restrictions he would accept as a condition of unbanning, but I doubt
his answers will show much adjustment.
Frank
--------
From: (rlevse)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:21:54 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
Agree, good idea here and keep in mind there's a reason he's been banned on multiple wikis; part of the reason is he's one of those who cannot admit their own wrongdoing.
R
----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:37:05 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
Dear Sydney,
Thanks for your reply.
Handling my appeal by email would be ok with me, provided that there is
proper hearing. Can you inform me about the procedure?
Is my appeal text of Dec 19 sufficient information to start with or do you
need more?
Regards,
Guido den Broeder
----- Original Message -----
From: "FloNight"
To: "Guido den Broeder"
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
> Guido den Broeder,
>
> The Committee has received your email requesting the appeal of your
----------
From: (rlevse)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 10:10:09 -0500
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
I thought we already turned him down?
R
---- Guido den Broeder wrote:
> Dear Sydney,
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 11:24:46 -0600
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
Right...with that text both the old and the new ArbCom turned him down.
Maybe if we tell him that the community identified serious issues, and that
he would need to demonstrate an understanding of them but proposing and
submitting to editing restrictions that are responsive to their concerns.
Frank
----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:50:56 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
*REMINDER*
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guido den Broeder"
To: "FloNight"; "Arbitration Committee mailing
list"; "Deskana" ;
"Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)"
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal
> Dear Sydney,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:00:59 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
As I said on the previous discussion that died out, the text of his Dec. 18
RFAR was turned down by both the old and new ArbCom.
Maybe if we tell him that the community identified serious issues, and that
he would need to demonstrate an understanding of them but proposing and
submitting to editing restrictions that are responsive to their concerns.
He needs to post serious concessions before he's let back. The community
ban seemed, if anything, overdue.
Frank
----------
From: Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:37:17 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Agreed and I thought we told him the outcome before or did that fall through
the cracks?
r/
Randy Everette
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:03:03 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
It appears that Deskana did send him an email December 30 indicating that it
was rejected. In his new attempt was sent on January 7. He apparently
wanted the committee to re-post his December 18 appeal for new voting. We
have not informed him that the new committee has also rejected his appeal.
Is there boilerplate for this?
Something like:
"The arbitration committee has reviewed the decision of the prior committee
and we agree with their rejection of your appeal.
If you involve yourself in another wiki project for a few months and
demonstrate a good
trouble-free track record, you can ask for ArbCom to review your block. We
would expect to see zero disruptive activity on that project. Furthermore,
as a condition of unblock, you must propose editing restrictions that are
responsive to the community's reasons for banning you."
Frank
----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:08:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Also mentioned he was rejected 30 Dec and refilling after only 8 days is not
the best of moves (smoothed up of course).
r/
Randy Everette
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
The arbitration committee has reviewed the decision of the prior committee
and we agree with their rejection of your appeal on on-wiki December 24 and
by email December 30.
If you involve yourself in another wiki project for a few months and
demonstrate a good
trouble-free track record, you can ask for ArbCom to review your block. We
would expect to see zero disruptive activity on that project. Furthermore,
as a condition of unblock, you must propose editing restrictions that are
responsive to the community's reasons for banning you.
Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:58:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Suggested boilerplate response to denied appeals:
"Dear Sir or Madam:
"The Arbitration Committee has reviewed your appeal, and we have both good
news and bad news for you.
"The bad news is that because of rising server costs and the straitened
economic climate, Wikipedia has decided to to have to charge a $25 annual
fee for each active editor, effective immediately.
"The good news is, you won't have to pay."
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:56:16 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> Suggested boilerplate response to denied appeals:
>
> "Dear Sir or Madam:
>
> "The Arbitration Committee has reviewed your appeal, and we have both
> good news and bad news for you.
>
> "The bad news is that because of rising server costs and the
> straitened economic climate, Wikipedia has decided to to have to
> charge a $25 annual fee for each active editor, effective immediately.
>
> "The good news is, you won't have to pay."
>
> Newyorkbrad
>
Friday evening cordial speaking, Brad? :-)
-- Coren / Marc
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:04:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
[Chuckle]
Roger
----------
From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:01:01 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Frank,
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The previous committee never responded to my appeal. I was banned by a random group of users who presented no evidence. The prior committee, and now also the current one, only reviewed a protest by another user against the way the ban came about, but not my own appeal regarding the actual merits of the ban.
Meanwhile, please note that I have already met the condition that you are now posing. I have a long standing of zero disruption on various projects.
I am not sure what you mean by editing restrictions. I was already under 1RR voluntarily and plan to continue that.
I would be willing to refrain from editing at all for some time if that helps, restricting myself to talk only.
Regards,
Guido den Broeder
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:31:51 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Deskana expressly told him that the appeal was denied Dec 30. He demanded
his text posted to RFAR, and FloNight informed that appeals are handled by
email.
He's got blocks on en, nl, and zea (whatever that is). Not a lot of
contributions on other projects--less than 100 total--unless he's using a
different name. Ask him?
http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/...ocks=true&lang=Frank
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:16:36 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
I have a couple of e-mails from Guido to me personally. Not much, just
complaining about the recent blocks of accounts claimed to be socks of
him (by the WP:DUCK test, I think). In at least one case, an IP was in
a different country, though I don't know how useful that is as I know
there are ways around that sort of thing. In essense. he is saying
that the admins labelling them as his socks were wrong. In particular,
one was called "Guido's Revenge". When I saw that, I immediately
thought it was either someone attempting to imitate Guido
(i.e.taunting him) or Guido playing a double bluff. The point here, is
that when someone is blocked when editing under their real name,
follow-up stuff involving socks should, IMO, be more circumspect, as
getting this wrong will unfairly impact the reputation of a real
person.
Some background: I used to try and persuade Guido to edit chess
articles (where I first encountered him - he is a fairly good chess
player, you can search for his rating and picture if you like). I also
tried to persuade him to steer clear of medical articles, and then
tried to see what the problem was with the CFS (chronic fatigue
syndrome) article. My impression was that Guido had some good points,
and would be a good source of information on specific sources about
CFS advocacy, rather than CFS stuff itself (he is active in CFS
patient advocacy in the Netherlands). I also tried to persuade him to
write about CFS advocacy (which has a long enough history in different
countries for an article, and enough of a different approach in
different countries that it is rather confusing), but he kept coming
back to the main CFS articles and pushing for his views there.
If the situation had been managed better on-wiki, I think a good
result would have been a topic ban for Guido from CFS and similar
medical articles, in an effort to steer him towards other stuff. The
chances of that working may not have been very high (and similar
problems may have reoccurred in terms of his style annoying some
people), but I would have liked to see that at least attempted.
And in general, where people are editing about medical conditions
close to them, where there is controversy or they have latched on to a
pet theory, and they find they cannot stay objective because of that,
I'd like to see them encouraged (and then forced by topic ban) to work
in other areas. Essentially, some might learn how Wikipedia works if
they were forced to stay away from their "red flag" areas. Ultimately,
such editors need to learn this themselves, but some guidance in the
form of topic bans *at the right point* would help, I think.
It is difficult though to get the right point for a topic ban. Too
early and you are restricting them too early. Too late, and they will
have pissed off enough people to get community banned. The latter,
IMO, is what happened with Guido. His litigatious nature (he *seems*
to have learnt not to do that now) and clashes over NLT (no legal
threats) didn't help in that regard. The blocks on other projects
didn't help either, though I am always wary of putting too much weight
on stuff done on other projects in general (different standards) and
in particular in languages I can't read (Dutch).
Right, that's me done on this. I'd appreciate any thoughts on this.
Was it helpful? Are the general points valid?
Carcharoth
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:55:02 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
According to babelfish, his nl block is "in accordance with pronouncement
arbcom" The linked page appears to say that he made legal threats on the
Dutch Wikipedia. <long link removed> I'm not enormously surprised.
How about this reply:
"Guido den Broeder,
It appears to the committee that you are blocked from the Dutch Wikipedia
for making legal threats there. At this time, you have no more than 100
edits from all other projects combined. We hope that you can demonstrate
that you're interested in building an encyclopedia.
Your topic ban was largely in response to editing in chronic fatigue
syndrome. Therefore, we suggest the following terms for returning to
Wikipedia:
*At least three months of disruption-free editing building the content of
the WMF project encyclopedia of your choice.
*Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year.
*Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against you by uninvolved admins for one year.
Please understand that any relapse into behaviour that caused your community
ban will result in an indefinate block from ArbCom. Please advise us on how
you plan to proceed."
Frank
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 19:22:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
I recused in the public request/appeal because I'm involved, and I'll
recuse in voting on any private appeal. What I provided was for
background. One point, which I raised at one of the NLT RFAR threads:
please don't rely on online translations of stuff on other projects. I
think the potential for error is too great. I would be far more
comfortable if translations of written material from other projects
was checked by an uninvolved native speaker, not involved with the
Dutch ban or this one. That might be difficult though. Personally, I'd
not mention the Dutch stuff at all, except to say that it doesn't
count for "stuff on other projects".
Carcharoth
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:55:20 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
OK fine, but I assume that the Dutch don't hand out indefinite blocks like
candy, especially considering the apparent number of chances he's had:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ido+den+Broeder----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:53:39 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
What if the reply simply says "It appears to the committee that you are
blocked from the Dutch Wikipedia, and at this time you have no more than 100
edits from any other project"?
Frank
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:29:08 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Anyone? Bueller?
Unless I hear something, I'm replying with my proposed text (with the
revision below) in 24 hours. It would be as follows:
"Guido den Broeder,
It appears to the committee that you are blocked from the Dutch Wikipedia,
and at this time you have no more than 100 edits from any other project. We
hope that you can demonstrate that you're interested in building an
encyclopedia in a non-disruptive manner.
Your topic ban was largely in response to editing in chronic fatigue
syndrome. Therefore, we suggest the following terms for returning to
Wikipedia:
*At least three months of disruption-free editing building the content of a
WMF project encyclopedia.
*Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year.
*Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against you by uninvolved admins for one year.
Please understand that any relapse into behaviour that caused your community
ban will result in an indefinate block from ArbCom. Please advise us on how
you plan to proceed."
His only significant non-en.wp experience is on the Dutch Wikipedia where
he's indefinitely blocked after a very long log spanning years. I do not
consider this "long standing with zero disruption" on other projects.
Frank
----------
From: (Risker)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:47:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
I'm generally fine with that, except the *requirement* to edit another WMF
project for 3 months. The previous version had a choice of editing another
project for 3 months, *or* a 6 month ban. I'd prefer him to have the
option.
I'm concerned about "dumping" our problem users onto other projects.
Although Guido is an exception, most of them only write well enough to
contribute in English, and the primary goals of other projects are so
different than Wikipedia that even if they are well-behaved, they may be
unable to contribute effectively. I've seen and heard complaints from other
projects on this very point.
Oh, and "indefinite".
Otherwise, this looks great. Thanks Frank.
Risker
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 19:57:02 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Concur with Risker on this. Otherwise, good work, Frank.
Roger
----------
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:40:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Looks good.
~W
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:21:35 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*
Guido den Broeder,
It appears to the committee that you are blocked from the Dutch Wikipedia,
and at this time you have no more than 100 edits from any other project.
Your topic ban was largely in response to editing in chronic fatigue
syndrome. Therefore, we suggest the following terms for returning to
Wikipedia:
1. EITHER three months of disruption-free editing, building the
*content*of a WMF project of your choice, OR a six month ban from
Wikipedia (making
you eligible for return on June 19).
2. Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year.
3. Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against you by uninvolved admins for one
year.
We hope that you can demonstrate that you're interested in building an
encyclopedia in a non-disruptive manner. Please understand that any relapse
into behavior that caused your community ban will result in an indefinite
block from ArbCom. Please advise us on how you plan to proceed.
Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
Guido den Broeder Ban (2008-2009)
MaliceAforethought Guido den Broeder Ban (2008-2009) 
