The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Guido den Broeder Ban (2008-2009)
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 9:12pm
Post #1


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



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_gebruikers

op 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_Broeder
http://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_Broeder
http://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.3F

In 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=229423053
Discussed at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...e_legal_threats
where 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-mails

1.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:Durovafor
a 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=259829445

Apologies 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=258970627

In 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)
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Emperor
post Fri 15th July 2011, 9:27pm
Post #2


Try spam today!
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,859
Joined: Sat 21st Jul 2007, 4:09pm
Member No.: 2,042



Interesting, they mention Moulton in here too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Fri 15th July 2011, 10:33pm
Post #3


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:59:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Frank,

I have plenty of edits on non-WMF open encyclopediae, where I have edited without incident. My current block at nl:wikipedia is the result of a personal vendetta by another user who I had to report to the police, all entirely unrelated to my editing.

Your terms seem to be based on the idea that I have edited disruptively on CFS topics. I do not believe that that is correct, nor that this was in fact the reason for the ban.
My editing has always been in good faith and never have I edited against consensus.

The suggested terms are therefore not acceptable to me.

I strongly suggest that you take a close look at what has happened on the main CFS page since I was banned, especially the talk page (including already archived parts), then you will see that I was not the one causing problems there. In fact, many users are quite explicit about that. But they never got the chance to speak against my ban.


Guido den Broeder
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:52:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Guido den Broeder wrote:
> Your terms seem to be based on the idea that I have edited disruptively on CFS topics. I do not believe that that is correct, nor that this was in fact the reason for the ban.
> My editing has always been in good faith and never have I edited against consensus.
>
> The suggested terms are therefore not acceptable to me.
>

As far as I'm concerned, no topic ban = no unban.

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:59:29 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Yup, per Marc.

Roger
------------

From: (Risker)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:00:24 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Agree with Marc and Roger.

Risker
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:06:42 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Agree with all. I'm willing to be flexible on the other terms, but the
topic ban is non-negotiable to me.

Frank
----------

From: (Deskana)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:55:50 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

I have always had a bit of a thing for banned users telling the ArbCom what
is and is not acceptable...

Dan
----------

From: vassyana(Peter Casey)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:09:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

A look at the talk page, as he suggested, reveals Guido has been evading the
ban via sockpuppets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_...Guido-s_Revenge

Pete
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:13:29 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

He's been editing this topic since March 2007 in English, and January 2007
in Dutch ("Chronischevermoeidheidssyndroom")--since the day he arrived on
each project. He protests any topic ban--he's not even negotiating for a
shorter length, he thinks *any *topic ban is unwarranted. About one third
of his edits are related to CFS, CFS talk, and various sub articles--he's
the number one contributor to this article. He is *not* going to get over
it. And in the event that he returns without making questionable
edits<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Guido_den_Broeder>,
and without making users think they're in an
experiment<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Guido_den_Broeder&oldid=257146078#Wikipedia.2C_the_social_experiment>,
we can lift the topic ban early.

My proposed reply is:

Guido den Broeder,

Editors under a topic ban may ask the Arbitration Committee to review their
bans after demonstrating several months of good editing. You could
certainly ask for a review after several months. However, the committee
agrees that any unban must include a topic ban over CFS. Feel free to
suggest adjustments to this arrangement, but some CFS topic ban is not
negotiable.

Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 04:00:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

I do not think any unban should be negotiable at this time, regardless of
the terms. He has been socking to avoid his ban, which routinely earns
resets and extensions. I strongly oppose any ban relief.

Pete
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:48:03 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

I'm not so sure he has been socking. Not even the stupidest
sockmasters call one of their socks after themselves. I mean "Guido's
Revenge"? Come on. Is that not someone else pretending to be him? No
comment on whether the other socks are him.

I agree that he needs to be topic banned from CFS etc. I once sort of
offered to mentor him on chess articles, but that offer is long gone.
The point where he posted some strange thing about an experiment was
where my patience evaporated. He needs at a minimum a long break from
this project and some way to demonstrate that he can avoid CFS topics.
If he is here only to edit CFS, then that is not good enough - he can
find other places to advocate. Obsessed SPAs are not what is needed
here.

Er, but take all the above with a pinch of salt, cos the last "OK"
interaction I had with him, he reacted badly, removed me from his list
of "respected Wikipedians" and opposed me in the ArbCom elections. :-)

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 10:00:40 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> I'm not so sure he has been socking. Not even the stupidest
> sockmasters call one of their socks after themselves. I mean "Guido's
> Revenge"? Come on. Is that not someone else pretending to be him? No
> comment on whether the other socks are him.

Course, I could be wrong.

"Guys, can I just point out that the 87.xx IP range is not associated
with Angela Kennedy - they're actually Confirmed as being belonged to
a banned editor, per checkuser & the associated sock account has been
blocked - Alison ? 10:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)"

When I want to check something like that, how do I actually do it (I
know, the first step is to actually request the tools!)? What I mean
is should I look for a checkuser case, or just e-mail Alison and ask
her what check was run, or look to see what check she ran? I think
what happened here is that people assumed Guido's IPs had to be in
Holland, but it turns out he was on the same IPs, and they were in
England. But I'm not sure.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Deskana)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 11:42:50 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Asking Alison is the best bet. Even if I was to look over it for you, I
might not understand it like she did.

Dan
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:45:33 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Actually, I checked Guido. His edits since November are from a single IP in
the Netherlands. Perhaps Alison is aware of an earlier check that showed
that IP, or perhaps it's a different banned editor? Dunno. I copied this
message to Alison. Hope she replies.

Frank
----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:06:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

I took Alison's comments at face value, as I usually do with checkusers. In
my book, Alison is particularly skilled and trustworthy, so my first
reaction to just her comments uncritically was quite reinforced.

Given the doubts raised here, I'll suspend belief temporarily. I'll wait and
see what information she provides, as well as what conclusion other arbs
come to in this case.

Pete (Vassyana)
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 15:31:33 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that her comment "a banned editor" links to
Guido.

Frank
----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Well, after a reread, I notice that Alison notes that someone else made the
link to the range or puppet. I think undertaking a little due diligence is a
good idea. At the least, the picture will be a bit clearer, one way or the
other.

Pete
----------

From: (Alison Cassidy)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:59:58 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Hi all,

There's some confusion over this. Guido contacted me on Meta to
clarify this. You can read it here;

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alison#Sockpuppetry

I clarified my comments on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_...Guido-s_Revenge

.. to state that the IPs involved weren't Angela Kennedy (who was
quite incensed), but actually an account 'Guido's revenge' that
someone else had connected to Guido den Broeder's account. The IP
traced back to the UK and checkuser {{confirmed}} it as Guido-s
Revenge. I was quite incorrect in linking it to Guido's account and
have posted a comment there now. I'd basically picked up the link from
the block log;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Guido-s_Revenge

-- Allie
----------

From: (Peter Casey)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:18:22 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Alison,

The Committee has received your email and is taking the new information into
consideration. Thank you very much for your thorough review and action in
this matter.

Pete (Vassyana)
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:46:01 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Hi Alison,

If you have run a checkuser, and are sure that Guido-s Revenge is just
someone trolling (and you were unable to find out who was doing the
trolling), would you be able to contact User:Jfdwolff and point out to
him that his block log summary here is incorrect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...Guido-s_Revenge

"Obvious sock of User:Guido den Broeder".

It appears he incorrectly applied the WP:DUCK test (it could still be
a meatpuppet, I suppose). Anyway, if you think it would be better for
me to contact Jfdwolff, I'm happy to do so, but it might be better
coming from you.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Alison Cassidy)
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:07:13 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Hi there, Carcharoth,

Leave it with me, so. I'll get back to him. If needs be, we can place
a message in the block log (it's just a troll SPA anyways), saying
that checkuser says otherwise.

Regards,

-- Allie
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:50:10 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Oh. Almost dropped this ball--his participation on WR reminded me. This
continues to be my proposed reply:

Guido den Broeder,

Editors under a topic ban may ask the Arbitration Committee to review their
bans after demonstrating several months of good editing. You could
certainly ask for a review after several months. However, the committee
agrees that any unban must include a topic ban over CFS. Feel free to
suggest adjustments to this arrangement, but some CFS topic ban is not
negotiable.

Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)

Will send in 48 hours without comments. Comments?
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 12:44:49 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Looks good.

--
John
-----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:22:22 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

I think you can probably send it now, Frank. I can't imagine anyone wanting
him back if he's going to continue with the nonsense related to CFS.

Risker
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:50:56 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

we didn't send anything? I thought we did. Anyway, looks good, just send it.

~W
Malice's Note: Anyone else concerned at how often AC plays "Who's on first?" Why do none of these idiots feel responisible for doing the work? Gossip must just be too much fun.
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:12:22 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Guido den Broeder,

Editors under any topic ban may ask the Arbitration Committee to review
their restrictions. You could certainly ask for a review after several
months of good editing. However, the committee agrees that any unban must
include a topic ban over CFS. Feel free to suggest adjustments to this
arrangement, but some CFS topic ban is required.

Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:19:32 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Frank,


Thanks for our reply.

Can you please tell me what the reason is why the committte wants to impose a CFS topic ban?

Again, if you look at what happened on that topic after I was community-banned, surely you must notice that the overwhelming majority of users there support my efforts and have objected to the community ban, which really cannot have anything to do with CFS anyway since none of the community members that banned me has ever taken an interest in that topic. Instead, the community ban seems to be an emotional response - of users that did not know me - to an essay that I wrote about Wikipedia itself, which was misunderstood and deleted from my user space (without consensus) on en:Wikipedia, but to which nobody has objected on meta. Surely those emotions must have dissipated by now.

Please note that I wrote most of the text on CFS and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis on nl:Wikipedia and there 99% of my text still stands uncontested after two years. I've also contributed to the CFS article on de:Wikipedia and none of my edits there have been objected to. The ME and CFS articles on nl:Wikisage and en:Wikisage are even entirely by my hand, again without anybody objecting.

For your information, I have furthermore published on ME/CFS as a scientist, and have also supervised scientific research and taken part in the development of the Dutch national guideline on CFS.

In view of the above, may I suggest that instead of a topic ban the committee imposes a generic trial period? I am willing to agree to 0RR during that time.


Regards,

Guido den Broeder
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:58:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Why are we still wasting our time with this guy?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:26:17 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

One of the reasons I don't think he should be unrestricted in CFS is that he
doesn't even recognize that his behavior is problematic, and his
counteroffer continues that tradition. He just wants to get back to CFS,
where he is a researcher who is POV pushing his minority views.

Again, here is his community ban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._of_MfD_page.3F

Although his "Wikipedia experiment" triggered the block, there are a lot of
reasons given in that debate. Given his prior blocks, I think "exhausted
the community's patience" is the correct label. If he refuses to contribute
to a non-COI, non-problematic area, then we can't help him.

Frank
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:34:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Well, if he's not accepting the compromises we're giving him, then the ban
stays in place as far as I'm concerned.
~W
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:08:09 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Wizardman wrote:
>> Well, if he's not accepting the compromises we're giving him, then the
>> ban stays in place as far as I'm concerned.
>> ~W
>
> Indeed; the topic ban is sine qua non.

Just as an aside, it is perfectly possible that the Dutch and German
Wikipedia articles do differ from the en-wiki article, as the whole
CFS thing is complicated by being viewed differently by patients and
doctors in different countries (and especially between the US and the
UK). I had hoped at one point to persuade Guido to work on the history
of CFS advocacy and the differences between countries, but it seems
what he really wants to do is edit en-wiki pages on CFS so they are
"right" (according to him and the sources he uses). Which misses the
whole point.

I do hope someday that someone can do justice to the overall
complexity of this topic without dismissing too much of the different
views. Seems like it won't be Guido though. I did try expanding on the
complexity of this (in particular the naming problems), but it can be
hard to make progress at an article and on the talk page if people
think you are changing things in the "wrong" direction from a status
quo they are happy with (or are happy to see the details fenced off in
subsidiary articles and not mentioned in the main article).

Or to put it another way, I don't think Guido is the only problem at
those articles. He's just been the one most out-of-step with the
current consensus. And until he can see what he needs to change, as
others have said, no change can be done as far as his ban goes. For
the record, I'm recused on any official vote - this is just one of
those background bits again, which may or may not have helped.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 20:39:30 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Yep. Similar divides are at work on fringe science topics generally.

Anyhow, my response would be something like:

Guido den Broeder,

The community banned you for *bona fide* concerns about disruption and POV
editing, among other things. Prior attempts (for example, your voluntary
1RR restriction<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&diff=248836781&oldid=248834726>,
which you sometimes
ignored<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&offset=20081220&action=history>)
did not prevent disruption to our project. The Arbitration Committee will
not disturb this valid community sanction unless you demonstrate good faith
contributions without disruption. Again, you may return to Wikipedia under
the following conditions:

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.

The topic ban is *not *negotiable.

Regards,
Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:56:34 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Any comments before I send this reply?

Frank
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:56:41 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Guido den Broeder,

The community banned you for *bona fide* concerns about disruption and POV
editing, among other things. Prior attempts (for example, your voluntary
1RR restriction<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&diff=248836781&oldid=248834726>,
which you sometimes
ignored<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&offset=20081220&action=history>)
did not prevent disruption to our project. The Arbitration Committee will
not disturb this valid community sanction unless you demonstrate good faith
contributions without disruption. Again, you may return to Wikipedia under
the following conditions:

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.

The topic ban is *not *negotiable.

Regards,
Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
-------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:24:04 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] Ban appeal *REMINDER*

Frank,


Can you please tell me why the committee thinks these concerns were 'bona fide', and in fact what they believe these concerns were? Using Latin to hide the lack of respectful, constructive communication does not impress me.

Several users asked repeatedly for diffs demonstrating any occurrence of disruption by me, and none were provided.

It is true that I made a number of attempts to prevent or minimize disruption, and that these attempts failed. However, I believe that I should be commended for making these attempts, not chastised. Rather than causing the disruption on the CFS pages, I was the one to try and do something about it, and in fact returned to active status for that very reason, where admins (with the exception of Mangojuice on one or two occasions, I should add) turned their back on us. Instead, the disruption was and is still caused by other users, who have consistently refused any kind of middle ground, dispute resolution or even to tag the article to indicate the existence of a dispute (a suggestion recently repeated in vain by Arthur Rubin) although they are a clear minority in their personal view.

Note that the one diff you gave does not provide an example of any kind of disruption by me, on the contrary. I did not break 1RR (even when faced with strong aggression, including false accusations of a conflict of interest, and while I would have been perfectly allowed to), but attempted a compromise. It is instead a good example of the incessant editwarring by WLU who, with RetroS1mone, is responsible for thrashing the once decent article (it received B quality status after I, and others, had put in a lot of work) by declaring any source unreliable that doesn't agree with their narrow-minded view, while ignoring policy, RS board advice and consensus to the contrary. This behaviour, by a couple of users effectively claiming ownership of the article, is still going on, and has in fact grown worse in my absence to the point that about any edit by someone else is now blindly reverted, and new users invariably get falsely accused of being sockpuppets.

The committee now apparently accuses me of pov editing, which IIRC the community did not, again without any attempt to provide evidence. I find this unacceptable and want to see this accusation either substantiated or withdrawn at once. As I am a scientist, everything that I write is checked by peers, and in 35 years furthering personal views has never come up as an issue. I furthermore want to know about these 'other things' that you mention.

Since we are now looking at the CFS article, can someone lift the ridiculous 3-month semi-protection instated by Fram? No vandalism was going on, the anons are in fact representing the majority. It is a blatant example of silencing the opposition, just like the ban of numerous good-faith editors, including me.


Regards,

Guido den Broeder
----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:11:44 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review

Dear Frank,


Since I now have 100 edits at nl.wikibooks, see http://nl.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=...ido+den+Broeder, a project that I joined in 2007, I would appreciate a review of my community ban. It would be great if I could return to contributing to en:Wikipedia on say March 19. Whatever the decision, I intend to continue with the wikibooks I'm working on, especially Schaken (Chess) and the one I started, Myalgic encefalomyelitis.

Please note that while I disagree with the committee's suggestions made thus far, I will not try to break or circumvent any restriction that the committee imposes. My goal is to collaborate constructively with other good-faith users.

I do not expect to have many dealings with the users that banned me, since they contribute to entirely different sections of Wikipedia, but if I do meet them, I will do my best to get along.


Best regards,

Guido den Broeder
----------

From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:53:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review

Yawn Yawn, let's move on.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:14:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

Note to arbitrators: I intend to give him conditions for unblock given that
he appears to be willing to abide with a topic ban, and has apparently
satisfied one of the return conditions (just barely, but it's been four
months, and his last message looks much more promising). I'll circulate the
reply email soon.

Frank
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:20:59 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

Quoting GDB: " I intend to continue with the wikibooks I'm working on,
especially Schaken (Chess) and the one I started, Myalgic
encefalomyelitis." I assume wikibooks have no relationship to articles, and
are allowed to be POV? Just clarifying, as "myalgic encephalomyelitis" is
another name for "chronic fatigue syndrome".

Risker
----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:21:01 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

A friendly reminder, as today is the day.

(Former?) admin Seicer who was instrumental in my ban expressed regrets at Wikipedia Review over repeatedly blanking my user page, so I'm okay with him now.

Regards,
Guido den Broeder
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:17:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

More or less, there are several medical conditions with similar symptoms, predominantly fatigue, nonspecific aches and pains, and no organic cuase found, which vary in name depending on which medical specialty is investigating - thus we have fibromyalgia, multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue, myalgic encephalitis and irritable bowel syndrome.
Cas
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:24:03 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

My understanding is that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Myalgic
encefalomyelitis are considered to be the same illness with different
names and slightly different diagnostic criteria because they
originated from different counties.

The other illness that you list overlap but have different enough
diagnostic criteria that they are not considered the same illness by
most clinicians.

Sydney
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:33:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

IBD more different the others not so much. It is an extremely difficult area to discuss and I have stayed away from it as far as possible on WP. I could talk alot more but not really keen on the reams of qualifying info I'd have to put in anyway at this point.
Cas
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:40:01 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *REMINDER*

I don't imagine the have the same policies since they're writing books, but
I've never participated in a books project.

At any rate, it's immaterial as long as we have the topic ban here. He can
post OR to his heart's content as longs as it's not on Wikipedia.

Frank
----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:38:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Second reminder.
Guido den Broeder

----- Original Message -----
From: Guido den Broeder
To: Cool Hand Luke
Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: Ban review *REMINDER*


A friendly reminder, as today is the day.
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:30:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Has he been sent the topic ban guidelines we drew up?
~W
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:01:42 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Doesn't he ever get the hint?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Deskana)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:48:50 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

Hi everyone.

Just a heads up. Durova posted an unban request on behalf of Guido den
Broeder, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ido_den_Broeder

In it he says he never got any response from you. I know that's not
accurate, so I thought you might want to clear that up.

No response/e-mail acknowledgement necessary, I know you've got it :-)

Dan
-----------

From: (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:06:18 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

2009/3/30 Deskana

> Hi everyone.
>
> Just a heads up. Durova posted an unban request on behalf of Guido den
> Broeder, here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ido_den_Broeder
>
> In it he says he never got any response from you. I know that's not
> accurate, so I thought you might want to clear that up.
>

There's only a small difference between "He got no response" and "He got a
'No' response".

--
Sam Blacketer
-----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:08:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

>009/3/30 Sam Blacketer
> 2009/3/30 Deskana
>>
>> Hi everyone.
>>
>> Just a heads up. Durova posted an unban request on behalf of Guido den
>> Broeder, here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ido_den_Broeder
>>
>> In it he says he never got any response from you. I know that's not
>> accurate, so I thought you might want to clear that up.
>
> There's only a small difference between "He got no response" and "He got a
> 'No' response".
>
> --
> Sam Blacketer

Indeed.

Sydney
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:39:05 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

Sam Blacketer wrote:
> 2009/3/30 Deskana
>
> Hi everyone.
>
> Just a heads up. Durova posted an unban request on behalf of Guido
> den Broeder, here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ido_den_Broeder
>
> In it he says he never got any response from you. I know that's
> not accurate, so I thought you might want to clear that up.
>
>
> There's only a small difference between "He got no response" and "He
> got a 'No' response".

I shamelessly stole that line with a minor paraphrase for my comment at
AN/I.

-- Coren / Marc
Malice's note: At this point, I must assume these idiots don't even bother to read emails that don't strike their political fancy. Or they're just pathelogical liars. Reader's choice.

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:27:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ncmvocalist role in Wikipedia

Ncmvocalist may still be one single editor but ArbCom doesn't need any more
copies of 'Giano treatment'. As I said, Giano still contributes raw
material. Ncmvocalist role fits rather the wp:no as we don't have roles
titled 'ArbCom Consultant' or 'ArbCom Prosecutor'. You can get a warning for
incivility if you label other people's contributions 'idiot'. Saying it to
ArbCom decisions is free of charge though there are ten ways to say it
otherwise. ArbCom decisions are contributions as well.

I have just sent an individual e-mail to Durova for the Guido case. Just
told her gently that she could have rather consulted with an arb or sent an
e-mail to this list before such an ANI action (claims and a kind of a 'chip
on her shoulder' vis-?-vis ArbCom). We still entertain good relations so my
e-mail will not be seen as patronizing (it is not indeed).

So if you see this in a big picture you'll realize that some users see that
they better take a load of work for themselves and use it to 'attack'
ArbCom. I appreciate the quality of their work but I believe that many of
their actions are disrupting the smooth running of the dispute resolution
system. Yes, they are helping somehow but they, most of the time, believe
they are the ones who have to take the decisions. If not, they would at
least make sure to send patronizing emails to ArbCom or do it on-wiki.
ArbCom respects criticism but it would still appreciate it professional and
collegial.

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:11:47 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

Interesting, I was actually leaning toward letting him back with
restrictions. This discussion suggests that the community really doesn't
want him back soon. Should still give him an update. Keep procrastinating.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:52:49 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

Durova archived the ANI appeal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=280780995
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:54:28 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

Oh, and that we then keep banned users updated on their talk pages,
with a link to an on-wiki page as a public record, to avoid the sort
of misleading crossed wires and errors (possible deception) by
omission by said banned users, as appears to happen here when Guido
contacted Durova.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:05:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

That's a really good idea. Of course, we would also respect a user's right
to vanish, but I think this will keep everyone on the same page in cases
where return is sought.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:11:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova: "Ban review for Guido den Broeder"

And I think we should backdate to the beginning of the year. I'll do
that tomorrow, once I've made all deadlines today. Anyone seeing me
posting to the list today, please trout-slap me.
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:17:35 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Hmm, well here were the conditions we laid out in the last email:

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.


March 19 was three months from the community ban. Beginning on Feb 13, he
dusted off his Dutch Wikibooks account and has made 106 edits there since,
mostly to chess, but also to CFS-related things. Prior to this date, he was
not editing this or any other project that I can tell--recall that he called
the offers "unacceptable" in January and February.

I see that Condition 1 might be ambiguous--I could have meant three months
total block (making the end date March 19, as he suggested), but I actually
meant three months of continuous editing without incident.

I propose allowing him to return May 13, assuming continued productive work
on nl.wikibooks and no incident there. I would also point out the strong
support for continuing his community ban. He should know that the community
will not tolerate any more social experiments. Thoughts?

Frank
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 13:53:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Here's my proposed reply:

Guido den Broeder,

Our original conditions suggested three months *editing* on a WMF project.
If you continue to contribute occassionally to nl.wikibooks without
incident, you would be eligible to return to Wikipedia on May 13 (three
months after you restarted editing there). There will be two conditions for
unblock:

Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year.
Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against you by uninvolved admins for one year.

In addition, the committee will review your participation after your first
month unblocked, and possibly each month after that for a probationary
period. The community continues to be very uneasy about you returning to
the project<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive525#Ban_review_for_Guido_den_Broeder>,
so we must be especially careful to determine that their concerns are now
unfounded. Any further POV pushing or social experiments will result in a
ban by the committee.

I hope that you can exceed the community's expectations,

Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 14:58:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

That sounds reasonable if he is staying out of trouble on the other
wikis where he is editing. With the automatic review, then we can give
him the hook if he is causing low level disruption.

Sydney
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 15:12:14 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Works for me too. Thanks for following up, Frank.

Risker
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 16:20:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

OK with me.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 11:12:04 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Guido den Broeder,

Our original conditions suggested three months *editing* on a WMF project.
If you continue to contribute occassionally to nl.wikibooks without
incident, you would be eligible to return to Wikipedia on May 13 (three
months after you restarted editing there). There will be two conditions for
unblock:

Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year.
Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against you by uninvolved admins for one year.

In addition, the committee will review your participation after your first
month unblocked, and possibly each month after that for a probationary
period. The community continues to be very uneasy about you returning to
the project<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive525#Ban_review_for_Guido_den_Broeder>,
so we must be especially careful to determine that their concerns are now
unfounded. Any further POV pushing or social experiments will result in a
ban by the committee.

I hope that you can exceed the community's expectations,

Frank
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:42:20 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

By "both accusations" does he mean POV pushing and social experimentation?
I don't have serious doubts, especially as he wrote a clear manifesto on the
latter.

Anyhow, if he stops, I'm happy. If not, this is the end of the line.

Any objections to posting a notice on the talk page that the Arbitration
Committee will likely allow his unblock in May with restrictions and under
continuing review? Didn't we want to post notice like that?

Frank



On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Guido den Broeder wrote:

> Dear Frank,
>
>
> This should give you plenty of time to investigate both accusations. I
> expect to hear from you.
>
> Please don't confuse a handful of IRC buddies with the community. So far
> the community has not been given the opportunity to say anything about my
> ban or my return.
>
>
> Guido den Broeder
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 16th July 2011, 1:37am
Post #4


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 15:48:09 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Yes for posting something. But we might want to wait til closer to the
time to see if any big problems crop up between now and then. There is
no reason to bring undue attention to him on other wikis like an
announcement now might do.

Sydney
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:22:31 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Betacommand appeal (Return of Betacommand?)

The thing missing is that he's just had a tough and an absolute majority ban
on January 2009 after he went on socking right after his indef block on
December 2008. How would you expect the community to react? It is not the
problem of ANI; there could have a somehow positive reaction if he had
waited for a few more months. Guido could have easily make it if it wasn't
because of his lies.

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:43:16 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Betacommand appeal (Return of Betacommand?)

But the point is that if an editor can make good contributions then
they should be allowed to edit. BC can make good contributions. Based
on how this situation developed over time, with loads of threads on
AN/I about BC, I don't think the people editing there are very open
minded about him. People for varying reasons wanted him gone well
before his indef ban. It was not surprising that the people in that
forum are not going say to let him return.

I think ath st best, a discuss there will be concluded as no consensus
either way. That would default to the status quo, which would be for a
editor to not be banned if they were still editing. If the request is
for a return, then the status quo would be for a continued ban. I'm
not sure that is the best way for the discussion to end and that's why
I think a Committee vote after a Community discussion is the best way
to bring some of these problematic editors back.

Sydney
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:02:45 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Betacommand appeal (Return of Betacommand?)

Part of the problem is also not being able to move on. Sometimes
people who think (sometimes rightly) that they were hard done by,
don't see that the way forward is sometimes to swallow their pride,
show they can move on and change, and gradually return that way.
Though some people will fight incessantly for their principles as
well.

Anyone who can refocus on reasonable and non-controversial article and
other content contributions nearly always gets back in, but the
problem then becomes whether they can resist returning to the areas of
controversy. Which is a pity, because sometimes (always?) the
controversial areas are left populated by the people that are very
good at either playing the game or assembling sources to back their
arguments. Whether the sources are being cherry-picked is another
matter.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 20:55:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

This guy just doesn't' get it. I say we just drop it. We have better things
to do than waste our time with this guy.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:34:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

He states. So far the community has not been given the opportunity to say
anything about my ban or my return." But there was an unban discussion i
believe..
~W
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:45:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Right, he believes that the comments were canvassed from IRC, and that
the *real
*"community" would support him if given the chance.

I think it's not uncommon for users to hear only the voices in agreement and
consider that the "community."

Frank
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:19:41 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

He knows that but if he wants us to send him the link to that particular
discussion then fine.

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 19:29:42 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Recused on any actual decision, but will reiterate my stance that in
any ban/unban discussion in general (whether here, on arbwiki, on-wiki
or anywhere) it is imperative to have a relatively full recent
background summary and links to the prior discusisons and e-mails.
e.g. the unban discussion Wizardman refers to.

I think the onus should be on the party appealing to send the links
and to summarise the backstory, but they should at least be asked to
send the links, and in cases of e-mails to this list, links to the
archives should be documented on arbwiki - otherwise it just gets too
confusing.

In case it's not clear, I'm writing as someone who was involved from
an earlier point in all this (though not all the way back to the
beginning), which gives me some insight into how much (or little) of
the background is being communicated by Guido (his own fault if he
doesn't) and how much others are aware of the background. It might be
that at some point the full background become irrelevant to current
events - difficult to tell.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:09:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

That is a pretty heavy load of work to be done for some people.

Remember that some users are not experienced users and would not have
the knowledge of where to look for the discussions. They may or may
not have been notified that they were happening. They may have limited
experience with editing and no understanding of Wikipedia dispute
resolution.

I add no idea what a diff was when I was added as a party to an arbcom
case. I'd been editing for less than 3 months and had done article
work but had no idea about dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I
commented on a RFC about an editor that was making blatant BLP
violations. Because of that I was added as a party to the case about
the editor when it started. I was not able to participate in the case
until I took the time to read about arbitration, how to present
evidence. This was around Christmas and I didn't have time to spend
doing it if Christmas was going to happen at my house. Luckily, the
case didn't proceed for a few weeks so I had time to figure out what
to do.

What I saying is that we shouldn't assume that users will know where
to find the discussions or how to prepare an link.

Sydney
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:30:19 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Sure. That is why the boilerplate finishes by saying "if you need help
with this, please ask". But there are minimum standards of information
that I think we can ask for, while bearing in mind that some of those
appealing might cherry-pick discussions ("oh, *that* appeal where I
was caught socking with another account at the same time as appealing?
I completely forgot to tell you about that one!").

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 23:26:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Appealing community ban of Thekohser / Wikipedia Review

He is publicly working on a reply at WR.
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=23816&hl= So far no one
seems to have anything, but Guido made an ambiguous comment that someone
might interpret as meaning he never got to appeal his block ("Nice. I never
got this opportunity"). I assume Guido means that he never got to do it
publicly, which you'll recall is what he wanted.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:31:57 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Appealing community ban of Thekohser / Wikipedia Review

Doing the appeal at Wikipedia Review doesn't really count as a public
appeal. If Greg asks anyone here to look there, you know what the
reply will be. I read the site (and don't have strong opinions about
it), but he needs to come through us if he wants a public appeal on
Wikipedia (we shield the community from endless requests for public
appeals). Same for Guido (who, by the way, could do the same as Greg
is doing at Wikipedia Review).

Not sure how those at Wikipedia Review (yes, I know several people
here post there to varying degrees) will appreciate their message
boards being used to construct appeals. Sorry, to "crowdsource a ban
appeal". But I suspected it wouldn't be long before something like
that was done.

The picture on the "it's a trap" comment is nice.

Agree with Fayssal that Dtobias's advice is best.

Carcharoth
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:53:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Ok, Guido has continued to edit on Wikibooks and has put up user pages
elsewhere.
http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/...ocks=true&lang=

As far as I can tell, there have been no incidents. Would anyone be opposed
to me emailing him, and putting a notice on his talkpage with links to the
community ban, our conditions, and his anticipated date of return (just a
few days from now)?

Frank
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 15:45:15 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Ok, Guido has continued to edit on Wikibooks and has put up user pages
> elsewhere.
> http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/...ocks=true&lang=
>
> As far as I can tell, there have been no incidents.? Would anyone be opposed
> to me emailing him, and putting a notice on his talkpage with links to the
> community ban, our conditions, and his anticipated date of return (just a
> few days from now)?

His nl.wb contribs are looking better. Chess, Draughts and Mathematics.

Where are "our conditions" ?

They dont appear in the rejected case

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=259834011

And are not on his Wpuser page:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ido_den_Broeder

Can we add them there?

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 15:52:20 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Hello Frank,

I believe we have reached May 13, so if you unblock my account today, that would be greatly appreciated by me. Feel free to impose any restrictions that you think are necessary at this time, and to review my participation as often as you want.

Regards,

Guido den Broeder
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:07:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Alright, he still looks good to me. How about I post a notice like this on
his talk page:

"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:

Topic ban on [[Chronic fatigue syndrome|CFS]] topics on all articles and
talk pages for one year.
Mandatory 1RR, enforceable against by uninvolved admins for one year.

Guido is encouraged to develop his contributions in other areas, and to
avoid antagonizing other editors on our collaborative project. ~~~~"

Could I unblock him, or ask a clerk?
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 13:13:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

I'm fine with all of this, including Frank doing the unblocking.

Risker
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:30:36 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Actually, is this the sort of thing we should vote on the ArbCom wiki? This
case is a bit of an anachronism; the subcommittee handles these in the
future.

Frank
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:15:18 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

I've added language about avoiding legal threats (which is a general rule,
not a unique restriction), and added a note "POV pushing or social
experiments will result in a ban by the committee. Happy editing."

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ard#Guido_unban

Frank
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:16:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Thank you Guido den Broeder,

Your message has been recieved, and the committee is having a brief
discussion. I hope to get back to you shortly.

Frank
-----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 22:35:08 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

I opposed on the grounds it should be specific provision and breaking it or
CFS proviso reinstates the ban.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:28:51 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

I don't see what's unclear about "POV pushing, legal threats, or social
experiments will result in a ban by the Committee."

Frank
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 00:41:46 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Still only seven votes on this. The statement specifically says that he
will be banned by the committee for "POV pushing, legal threats, or social
experiments." Do you want it to be an numbered restriction? I didn't think
it made sense to do that because everyone is restricted from legal threats.

Frank
------------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 06:48:16 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Like Bainer said, he needs to be on a hair-trigger NLT notice, this guy has
a long history of legal threats.

r/
Randy Everette
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 09:46:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

Do you have a proposal? I'm not sure what a hair-trigger NLT ban would look
like. I'm pretty happy with "POV pushing, legal threats, or social
experiments will result in a ban by the Committee," especially because I was
not alarmed by his legal threat--where he sort of voluntarily had himself
blocked.

Frank
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 11:26:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

support. (didn't realize we all had to throw our one-sentence things in)
~W
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 10:47:55 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

No problem. That makes 8. I'll check back later today. If there's another
vote, I'll go ahead and do it unless there are major concerns.

Since we are explicitly reviewing his activity, I'm not worried that a legal
threat will slip under the radar. If he makes one, we can quickly end this
final experiment with allowing his editing privileges.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...ard#Guido_unban

Frank
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 09:44:21 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

The currently proposed unban language is:

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<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbcom-en/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&action=edit&redlink=1>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. Happy
editing. ~~~~

Eight votes in favor, Sam Blacketer and Rlevse opposed because NLT warning
does not indicate a "hair trigger." I would really appreciate it if someone
could offer another vote, or an alternative that might satisfy their
concerns. I think this is appropriate because we're retaining review over
Guido's case and can reblock if necessary.

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 11:37:14 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*

That's better, but I can't bring myself to support, My gut tells me this guy
is Trouble (yes, with a capital T).

r/
Randy Everette
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 18:07:44 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban review *SECOND REMINDER*


Guido den Broeder,

I've unblocked you on behalf of the committee and have posted a notice of
your restrictions on your talk page. As you know, the community was wary of
restoring your editing rights. Concerns were also raised by the Committee.
We will periodically review your editing behavior and we will issue a ban if
issues emerge.

We're assuming a lot of good faith by unblocking you, and I hope that you do
not disappoint us.

As personal advice, I strongly recommend you avoid controversial topics.

Frank
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:03:10 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

MastCell gave me permission to forward this.

I tend to think that Rlevse was right. Guido in fact shows no awareness of
why he was banned. He denies ever POV pushing or even edit warring. See my
talk page where he warns me not to make "tenditious
statements"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Looking_for_a_link>such
as my
comments to Whatamidoing<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing#Guido>,
who was concerned about his unban. Additional helpings of denial on his
talk page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder>.

Meanwhile, he's decided to get involved with a totally new controversial
topic and make a mess--see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_cooling#William See also the new
note at the bottom of my talk page where he concludes that all topics are
OWNed, so that he can't edit anywhere uncontroversially.

Meanwhile, thousands of other Wikipedians seem to get along fine. I'm not
sure how the suggestion to edit in an uncontroversial area like chess turned
into global warming, but I'm wondering if we should put an end to this
experiment, and how we should do it.

Frank

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: MastCell
Date: Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
To: Cool Hand Luke


Hi,

I saw that Guido den Broeder is being allowed to resume editing. I was
wondering if you had spoken to User:Jfdwolff (Jacob de Wolff). Jacob is an
admin/longstanding editor and a physician in the UK. Guido has been going on
at Wikipedia Review that Jacob has a "conflict of interest" in editing
chronic fatigue syndrome and other medical topics, simply because Jacob
works for the NHS (as do nearly all hospital-based doctors in the UK). Guido
apparently discovered this by searching for Jacob's Facebook profile and
linking it to his account - admittedly, not hard to do given the similarity
in the names, but not exactly promising.

More concerningly, there had recently been a handful of IP's/socks spamming
links on Wikipedia to a real-life medicolegal dispute that Jacob was
involved in. I can't remember if Guido was directly involved - the links
have been oversighted, I think, and it may have been User:Alpinist, a
different CFS activist. I'm just a bit concerned that Guido hasn't really
turned over a new leaf, and I'd feel better knowing that you (meaning the
Committee) had gotten Jacob's perspective about the unblock. For all I know,
Jacob may be on board - he's pretty generous with second chances - but if I
were him, I'd want to hear about this from you guys.

Just a thought. Keep up the good work.

--
This e-mail was sent by user "MastCell" on the English Wikipedia to user
"Cool Hand Luke". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia
Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 10:08:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Our intention was to closely monitor him.

If he is immediately having problems then we need to tell him that it
is not working out and re-block him.

This is similar to past efforts to return other banned users.
Sometimes it does not work out.

Sydney
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 09:42:43 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

This just in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292446856

"I find your unfounded accusation of pov-editing unacceptable. I will not
converse with you again."

Frank
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:40:29 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=292637181

He left a comment about Sam Blacketer situation that clearly shows
that he does not accept his editing restriction.

Sydney
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:47:07 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

At this point, he is becoming disruptive enough that we need to consider a
reblocking. Later today I will try to develop some wording for a block
message, and will propose it here on this list. I'd be willing to carry out
the block.

His behaviour is a classic example of biting the hand that fed him. Sorry
you're getting the brunt of it, Frank.

Risker
----------

From: (Wizardman)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:34:25 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Mhm, he's exhausted my patience already.
~W
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 11:43:07 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

OK, thanks. I'm going to step away from this one, as I'm now involved too
much with user. (See this weird
exchange<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&action=history>,
where WMC has now restored my question apparently removed by Guido as a
personal attack.) Will recuse for future discussions. However, I do think
that the committee should be careful for the reasons of re-blocking if you
do. Don't want to give him a platform that he was blocked for
meta-dissent--would prefer that he's reblocked if and only if he makes more
disruptive article/talk page edits like his recent GW tiff.

Good luck.

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 15:25:20 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Hate to say I told you so, but I did.. ;-)

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 12:06:16 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido


On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 5:25 AM, Randy Everette wrote:
> Hate to say I told you so, but I did?. ;-)

Do we want a motion to reblock ?

Or shall we just do it ... ?

Is there anything preventing an ordinary admin from indef blocking ?

Perhaps an ANI community ban thread should be initiated ?

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:15:35 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Do it ourselves and avoid the drama.

So just do it or motion. How long will that take us?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:37:45 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

A user has complained that Guido posted the abstract of an unpublished CFS
article on his talk page. User claims this violates his topic ban, and
several others are debating it on his talk page. He's asked me to weigh in
on it. I think this might be a good opportunity to explain I'm recused from
further decisions about him (especially because he claims I was an opposing
party on the topic--as it turns out, I reverted him twice in January
2008--my only two edits to MFS). I honestly did not remember that I had
done that.

If no one objects quickly, I'll tell him I'm now recused.

That said, someone needs to clarify this issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder

Frank
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:44:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Correction: he claims it's only an ME abstract, which he claims is totally
different from CFS. He denies even having a topic ban on ME.

Frank
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:45:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

For those not steeped in this case, could you spell out the acronyms?

Newyorkbrad
---------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 00:51:12 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

CFS = Chronic fatigue syndrome
ME = Myalgic encephalomyelitis

Also, myalgic encephalopathy, both alternative names for chronic
fatigue syndrome.

If you really want to get further into it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_n...atigue_syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies...atigue_syndrome

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 18:51:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Chronic fatigue
syndrome<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronic_fatigue_syndrome>and
myalgic encephalomyelitis, which currently both redirect to a single
article. Commonly called
"ME/CFS<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22ME%2FCFS%22>",
Guido apparently thinks they are distinct enough not to fall under the same
topic ban.

Frank
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:56:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Most medical authorities recognize them as the same disease. Likely
his opinion that they are different are at the root of his editing
difficultly.

This is reason enough to block him.

Sydney
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:13:11 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

The problem tends to be that there are patient groups who disagree
with the doctors. Which is unfortunate, because the patients (and
activist groups) then try and edit Wikipedia to put the "TRUTH" out
there. I was involved in talk page discussions on this (part of the
reason I recused) and one comment (from User:sciencewatcher) struck me
as getting close to what should probably happen:

"I agree that many patient groups do believe that ME and CFS are
different (not just Guido), and if we can find a quote or reference
from a respected patient organisation it might be worth putting it in"

Unfortunately, that never happened. And would likely lead to more
arguments anyway.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 00:14:13 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME). The
chronic illness that Guido is causing ArbCom and Frank in particular. I am
really missing the recent developments.

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 19:37:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

I've advised him I'm recused.

There's also an ANI thread discussing his return. Some praising language
there makes me blush. Fram called for another community ban, and several
other users are unsure about whether the community has the power to ban him
again. According to my Wiki-judicial philosophy, I think they do have that
right, but it's worth taking a look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ido_den_Broeder

Frank
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:03:08 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

I've just posted
this<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=293001824>at
ANI.

Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:29:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

More wikilawyering by him. jUst ban him again.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:55:19 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Forwarded email about Guido

There's already an ANI
discussion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Discussion_of_arbitration_decision_and_enforcement_at_ANI>about
how to deal with user:Guido van Broader.
Fayssal F.
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 21:22:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido again

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_do_you_think.3F

The debate is ongoing. I gave him a strong hint ME was under CFS then Coren
flat out told him and he's still arguing with us and others.

I've just now given him one last chance to walk away from ME/CFS. Keep in
mind it only took him days to get into trouble over this.

Like I said before, we should just reban him and be done with it.

Key quotes from Guido:

"I am not responsible for the faulty redirect." (of ME to CFS)

"The fact that WLU is now hijacking this thread to once again spread
misinformation on the topics in question seems equally telling to me."

Shoot, I have no problem blocking him myself.

r/
Randy Everette
---------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 12:47:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido again

It seems that Guido's just asked Lar to be a sort monitor for him. If I
were Lar, I would not exactly jump at the opportunity.

Frank
----------

From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 19:18:02 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido again

Randy Everette wrote:
>
> Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_do_you_think.3F
>
>
>

Given his 1RR and constant wikilawyering, I propose we revoke the
unban. He's been playing us and is completely in bad faith.

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 19:22:20 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido redux

I've changed this thread name to match my motions on arbwiki.

See thread and links there. We need to resolve this asap. I've blocked him a week for 1RR vio which of course he's trying to wikilawyer his way out of.

I put up two motions: one to reban him and one alt to tighten the restrictions.

R
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 00:31:03 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido redux

Voted.

Roger
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 19:55:21 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido redux

Voted to re-ban.

Sydney
----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:09:28 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido redux passing

This reban already has 8 support votes. In order to give more arbs a chance to vote, we should wait some yet.

R
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:40:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido redux passing

Someone has expressed a concern that Guido made a legal threat by accusing
me of defamation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...s#Guido_blocked

As the target of Guido's remark, I don't think it is such a threat. I would
prefer that it not be mentioned as even partial grounds for any action
against him. If he is reblocked, it should be for the incompatibility of
his editing with our project.

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 07:16:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido banned

I've indeff'd Guido, told him on his talk page, posted on AC/N, AN, and that
ANI thread.

John, pls explain to him on his talk about the 1RR vio. The reason I put was
"editing incompatible with our project", if anyone wants to tweak, feel
free.

r/
Randy Everette
---------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:18:51 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido banned

I don't know whether anyone else has looked at his nl:wiki blocklog
(where he's indeffed too) but it's quite something:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ido_den_Broeder
<http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciaal:Logboeken&type=block&page=Gebruiker%3AGuido_den_Broeder>

Roger
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:35:51 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido banned

Indeed. My first proposed message to him in January opened with the line:
"It appears to the committee that you are blocked from the Dutch
Wikipediafor making legal threats there. At this time, you have no
more than 100
edits from all other projects combined..."

It was objected that we don't have any means to verify the legitimacy or
cause of his blocks from nl.wp, so that language was dropped. I did include
this as background information to Guido's appeal though.

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J...ales#Ban_appeal

Frank
----------

From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:25:37 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido banned

Yes, on reviewing his nl:wiki block log, it definitely sounds like he's
gotten in Dutch with them.

Newyorkbrad
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:06:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Ban appeal/Guido den Broede

I've not replied yet. I'll likely in a very brief email point out the
explanation on the notice board, and his continued argument. And then
close the email by saying that I'll not reply further since the appeal
needs to go to the Appeal subcommittee for future consideration.

I don't think back channel communication with him will be helpful
because he will likely use anything we say that contradicts each other
to confuse the situation when he explains the situation to other
people that he wants to advocate for him.

Sydney

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guido den Broeder
Date: Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Subject: Ban appeal
To: FloNight


FloNight,

Thank you for finally mentioning the reason for my current ban.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=296017615]

You write: "After the unblock, he broke the topic ban, was warned and
continued to argue about it. That aspect of the situation was
non-negotiable. That was the reason that we quickly banned him again
instead of tweaking the restriction or giving him some leeway."

I'm sorry, but I do not quite follow. I have these questions:

(1) How was I to know that the Arbcom meant the topic of ME to be
included in the topic ban?
(2) Which warning am I supposed to have ignored?
(3) Where did I argue about it? I believe that my only and immediate
response was to ask for clarification,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke&diff=prev&oldid=292960954][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder&diff=prev&oldid=292961852]
and to confirm that I would abide by the ArbCom's
interpretation.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=293008240]
(4) Is it not normal procedure to 'tweak' restrictions when
clarification has been asked?

I believe that this reban was made in haste and on emotional grounds
only. I believe that, as always, I have acted out of good faith only,
and that good-faith users should not be banned.

On these grounds, I appeal this ban.

Regards,

?Guido den Broeder

c.c.: Tekaphor, SunCreator

--
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: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:57:47 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Ban appeal/Guido den Broede

FloNight wrote:
> I've not replied yet. I'll likely in a very brief email point out the
> explanation on the notice board, and his continued argument. And then
> close the email by saying that I'll not reply further since the appeal
> needs to go to the Appeal subcommittee for future consideration.
>

At this point, I'm not convinced that *any* reply is useful short of a
"Talk to us in six months, we might reconsider".

He's still flailing for ways to argue his way out of his own mess, and
will be glad to string us along a long chain of wikilawyering 'till the
cows come home.

-- Coren / Marc
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:00:05 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Ban appeal/Guido den Broede

Yes. He wants the discussion.

Sydney
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:23:18 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal

Hello Guido den Broeder,

I'm referring your comments to the Ban Appeal Subcommittee for follow
up since they are the group that will hear your future appeals.

Sydney
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:40:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal

Just ignore him. Geez.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:27:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

Your email about your indefinite ban has been forwarded by Arbitrator
FloNight.

Per policy, you may appeal the ban after one year.
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_process)
<https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_process>


For the Arbitration Committee,
Roger Davies
----------

From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:05:40 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Your email about your indefinite ban has been forwarded by Arbitrator
> FloNight.
>
> Per policy, you may appeal the ban after one year.

I think we should mention this to people when they first initiate a
ban appeal, so that they know they need to be serious because they
only have one chance per year.

Also, is Betacommand on his second appeal this year ? Or was the
first not a "committee ban".

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:28:51 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

Roger Davies,

I do not want to wait for a year, I wish to appeal now.

Appeals after a year are for users who think they have improved their
behaviour.
My reason to appeal, however, is that the decision to ban was made in error,
and that since I already am a good user the ban serves no purpose.

Please note that the decision to ban was made without hearing me first. Had
I been heard, the error could easily have been avoided.

Regards,

Guido den Broeder
----------

From: (FloNight)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:41:09 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

(To the list only.)

This guy wants discussion. Evidently, that was the point of his
return. He wants to talk about CFS/ME and our policies that stop him
from making changes to the articles on this topic.

We need to be firm here and let him know that the appeal and chance to
return is done for now.

Sydney
----------

From: (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:13:29 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Guido den Broeder wrote:

> I do not want to wait for a year, I wish to appeal now...


Your preferences are noted. However, we will not consider any further
appeals at this time.

Any further correspondence from you on this matter will not receive a
response.

Regards,
Kirill
----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:14:02 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

Incidentally, I got an emailer message from someone concerned that
User:Destroying Angela was a Guido sock because of (1) exclusive focus on
CFS/ME, (2) shared POV, (3) only editing when Guido was banned, (4) use of
abbreviation "Tek" indicating familiarity. Only 24 edits on this account,
mostly adding CFS/ME info to user page. I don't know if this is enough to
warrant checkuser, but I am certainly involved.

Seems to be a play off of Angela Kennedy's user name, perhaps? I mirror to
her Guido's Revenge account? Dunno.

Frank
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:30:45 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

Good. Leave it at that and ignore anything else he sends us.

r/
Randy Everette

> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:13:29 -0400
> From: Kirill Lokshin
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder
> To: Guido den Broeder
> Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Guido den Broeder
> wrote:
>
> > I do not want to wait for a year, I wish to appeal now...
>
>
> Your preferences are noted. However, we will not consider any further
-----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:26:57 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

As a first consequence of your decision, I have now withdrawn from #wikipedia-en, where I frequently helped admins and other users.

Guido den Broeder
----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:58:22 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

Yes!

Fayssal F.


> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 08:13:29 -0400
> From: Kirill Lokshin
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder
> To: Guido den Broeder
> Cc: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Guido den Broeder
> wrote:
>
> > I do not want to wait for a year, I wish to appeal now...
>
>
> Your preferences are noted. However, we will not consider any further
-----------

From: (Fayssal F.)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:04:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

That is enough as a reason to warrant a check.

Fayssal F.

> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:14:02 -0500
> From: Cool Hand Luke
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder
> To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> Incidentally, I got an emailer message from someone concerned
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Sat 16th July 2011, 2:10am
Post #5


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



From Guido den Broeder:
QUOTE
For your information, I have furthermore published on ME/CFS as a scientist, and have also supervised scientific research and taken part in the development of the Dutch national guideline on CFS.
From an arb, Randy Everette -- who was that? --:
QUOTE
Why are we still wasting our time with this guy?
And from Cool Hand Luke, showing why he was such an ineffective and useless arb:
QUOTE
One of the reasons I don't think he should be unrestricted in CFS is that he
doesn't even recognize that his behavior is problematic, and his
counteroffer continues that tradition. He just wants to get back to CFS,
where he is a researcher who is POV pushing his minority views.
What they want him to do is completely avoid the topic he's expert on, and a "researcher," even one with some "minority view," maybe especially such a one, will know and understand the topic like a hundred times better than the ordinary Wikipedia editor, better than your average arbitrator, fur shur. They want him to work in the salt mines. Reminds me of the Cultural Revolution in China.

I know Guido can be a royal pain. But, my guess, with some care and feeding, he could really help with a number of topics. Like the one they banned him from. Sure, he'd need to be restrained, but they have the tools to use to restrain him.

But they don't understand why putting some effort into channeling the efforts of "this guy" could be valuable. So the only tool they use is block and ban.

Multiply that by the number of experts they have blocked and banned.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
MaliceAforethought
post Sat 16th July 2011, 2:29am
Post #6


u Mad?
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue 21st Jun 2011, 6:54am
From: Wonderland
Member No.: 57,801



From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:08:11 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Fayssal F. wrote:
>
> That is enough as a reason to warrant a check.

I agree. We could send this to func-en to be checked ?
If he is socking, he seems like the sort of fellow that will keep coming back.

--
John Vandenberg
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:09:26 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder

I'll run it now.

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:52:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

Here are my notes, looking for feedback. It's quite interesting.

Guido den Broeder, Guido IV The New Dawn, StevieNic, and Destroying Angela
have NO overlapping edits, some are sequential (close after one another) but
none overlap. If they were on the same IP or close IPs, this'd be rock solid
due to articles of interest. However Guido den Broeder is on one IP only
that is in Holland and the other three users share 3 IPs from the same ISP
in England.

So, the question is, is Guido socking from Holland using a Brit ISP (he's
smart enough to do that, he's a world class chess competitor) or are the
other three a meat puppet across the channel in England? I'm convinced the
other three are one person, but is that person the same person as Guido den
Broeder? This is very suspicious to me.

17 Jun 2009
Guido den Broeder
Destroying Angela

This was shortly after Guido was rebanned.

The email:
That is enough as a reason to warrant a check.
Fayssal F.

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 11:14:02 -0500
From: Cool Hand Luke
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Ban appeal / Guido den Broeder
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>

Incidentally, I got an emailer message from someone concerned that
User:Destroying Angela was a Guido sock because of (1) exclusive focus on
CFS/ME, (2) shared POV, (3) only editing when Guido was banned, (4) use of
abbreviation "Tek" indicating familiarity. Only 24 edits on this account,
mostly adding CFS/ME info to user page. I don't know if this is enough to
warrant checkuser, but I am certainly involved.

Seems to be a play off of Angela Kennedy's user name, perhaps? I mirror to
her Guido's Revenge account? Dunno.

Frank

Guido den Broeder

62.251.30.182

XS4ALL INTERNET BV Amsterdam/Zoeterwoude in Netherlands.

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET CLR
2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET
CLR 3.0.30618)

Sending lots of email



Destroying Angela Edited only Dec 30 - Jun 05 (many interests overlaps)

87.113.143.128 west of Leeds, England

PlusNet plc. Sheffield

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

87.112.9.4 London

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

87.114.132.57 west of Leeds, England

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)





Guido IV The New Dawn Edited only May 27, two edits

87.114.132.57 west of Leeds, England

PlusNet plc. Sheffield

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

Edited only May 27, two edits



StevieNic Edited Feb 02 - Jun 17, many interests overlaps

87.113.143.128 west of Leeds, England

PlusNet plc. Sheffield

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

87.114.132.57 west of Leeds, England (same day as destroying angela)

PlusNet plc. Sheffield

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10)
Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)


r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:57:14 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

Frank:

Do you have notes from your Feb 7 check of Guido that will help?

r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Risker)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:04:45 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

Perhaps ask on functionaries-L if anyone has notes on the last check of
Angela Kennedy, as well. For some reason it occurs to me that she was in
the UK, but I am not completely certain.

Risker
------------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Functionaries-en] Angela Kennedy, Destroying Angela

I was thinking something along those lines myself....
Cas
(note I have posted this to arb and not func-L)
________________________________
From: Randy Everette
To: English Wikipedia Functionaries email list <functionaries-en at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:07:33 PM
Subject: [Functionaries-en] Angela Kennedy, Destroying Angela

Does have CU notes on Angela Kennedy or Destroying Angela they can forward to me?
?
r/
Randy Everette
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

Randy - I have a vague memory of Mastcell blocking or removing?(or something)?an IP editing off either the Chronic Fatigue page or its talk page, or the Simon Wessely Page or talk page, and Angela Kennedy admitting onWR that it was her. My connection is very slow where I am but that will reveal her IP if no other checks. If I can I will post some more exacting info.
Cas
----------

From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

maybe this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ns/88.108.58.92

?
-----------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:13:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

I did not keep that one. I believe that's when we were trying to figure out
if Guido'sRevenge was in fact his sock. I found that he had only edited
from one IP, which I presume was 62.251.30.182 (next entry in log). That IP
did not turn up any socks at the time. Alison later explained that she
meant Angela Kennedy, not Guido. I would guess that she might know more
about her.

Frank
----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:56:09 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Guido, Guido IV, Destroying Angela, StevieNic

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Randy Everette wrote:

<snip>

> So, the question is, is Guido socking from Holland using a Brit ISP (he?s smart enough to do that, he?s a world class chess competitor) or are the other three a meat puppet across the channel in England? I?m convinced the other three are one person, but is that person the same person as Guido den Broeder? This is very suspicious to me.

Rating of 2285 - no FIDE-rated games in last 9 years. Eh, I suppose
that could be world-class from some perspectives (much better than
me), but it's not really that good. I wouldn't say people are
world-class until they get to IM level (2400+).

And more to the point, since when did being a good chess player
correlate to socking activity? Some chess players are completely
technically inept. He could well be socking across the Channel, but
how on Earth do you prove that sort of thing? I was under the
impression it was technically possible to sock anywhere from anywhere,
but maybe that's my lack of technical knowledge showing.

Carcharoth
----------

From: (Durova)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 13:26:13 -0700
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

I am not an administrator and have no power to restore your email
privileges, unfortunately.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Guido den Broeder wrote:

> My email privileges were taken away by Rlevse today based on reports
> that in June of this year I had abused my email privileges in contacts with
> users RetroS1mone, RobinHood70 and Jfdwolff.
>
> These reports, however, are false.
>
> At no time have I threatened any user. Please note that this is not the
> first time that I have been similarly falsely accused by Rlevse.
>
> Nor have I tried to persuade them to edit in my stead.
>
> I would appreciate the immediate restoration of my email rights, as well as
> the removal of the various false accusations against me from the page
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome .
>
>
> Please note furthermore that I am well within my rights to maintain that my
> current ban from editing en.wikipedia is entirely baseless, and that stating
> so elsewhere is not a valid ground to punish me further.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Guido den Broeder
-----------

From: (Guido den Broeder)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:05:55 +0200
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

My email privileges were taken away by Rlevse today based on reports that in June of this year I had abused my email privileges in contacts with users RetroS1mone, RobinHood70 and Jfdwolff.

These reports, however, are false.

At no time have I threatened any user. Please note that this is not the first time that I have been similarly falsely accused by Rlevse.

Nor have I tried to persuade them to edit in my stead.

I would appreciate the immediate restoration of my email rights, as well as the removal of the various false accusations against me from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome .


Please note furthermore that I am well within my rights to maintain that my current ban from editing en.wikipedia is entirely baseless, and that stating so elsewhere is not a valid ground to punish me further.


Regards,

Guido den Broeder
-----------

From: (rlevse)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 16:36:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

<rm'd Durova and Guido>

Banned means banned. He was sending emails up into early July that including attempts to sway editors to write to his POV. Today he sent me one of the emails in question, which I have saved.

On top of all that, banned means banned.

Pertinent thread:
Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome#Inappropriate_contact_by_banned_or_current_users

I was made aware of it when someone posted on my talk asking for help.

Guido is up to his old games and I STRONGLY suggest we not indulge him again.

R
------------

From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 17:51:33 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

I got an email from RobinHood about this as well. Canvassing looks like the
correct conclusion to me. No opinion on how it's handled; recuse as to any
action. Just wanted to notice that I did get an email (on my first day of
the Illinois Bar Exam).

Frank
-----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 13:19:30 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

Editing Wikipedia's is a privilege and not a right: you lost all
privileges when you were banned. There is no reason for a banned user to
have access to the email system. Rlevse's action, whether or not your
abused email, is justified on that ground alone.

You may make one appeal per year: the earliest date you may appeal is 1
June 2010. Until then, further communications from you will be ignored.


Roger Davies
-----------

From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2009 14:04:37 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

Did a copy get sent to him?

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Editing Wikipedia's is a privilege and not a right: you lost all
----------

From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:15:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request to restore my email privileges

[list only]

I'm ignoring this.

Roger


Guido den Broeder wrote:
> Roger,
>
> Regardless, I, as a living person, am now being portrayed as someone
> who abuses email privileges.
> Since this is not true, I want to see this defamatory portrayal
> corrected.
>
> Guido den Broeder
-----------

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Sat 16th July 2011, 3:13am
Post #7


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
he's smart enough to do that, he's a world class chess competitor




biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif


laugh.gif

hrmph.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Sat 16th July 2011, 6:34pm
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



Thanks for these logs.

Note that the topic of ME, one of the most severe illnesses of our time, is considered fringe by these people. But consider that en:Wikipedia has no article on ME, and all attempts to create one (no, not by me) are deleted on sight, whereas topics that really are fringe do have articles.

Note their presumption that their own opinion on the topics of ME and CFS is the absolute truth and overrides all knowledge of a published expert in the field.

From there, all they produce is fiction. My richly sourced edits presenting the mainstream scientific view, always in accordance with consensus, suddenly become 'pushing a minority view', and we are off.

Note furthermore the complete absence of any attempts to provide evidence of any wrongdoing by me, as well as a total refusal to answer my questions.

The entire discussion can best be summarized thus: "He is a patient, so he cannot possibly have anything worthwhile to contribute. Instead, he is of course here to be disruptive. We can assume that without actually looking at the facts."

Very telling is the eagerness to block other accounts for no other reason than that they voice a similar view on content, despite the utter failure of all CU attempts (quite logical, since these accounts are not mine).

We see that over and over again in all the logs, where a normal human being would instead think: "Hey, here are a whole lot of others that agree with what he said. Perhaps we were too hasty to conclude that it was a minority of one."

There is Alison's voice of reason, but naturally in the end she got ignored.


Cheers,

Guido

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Sat 16th July 2011, 6:37pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Sun 17th July 2011, 3:21pm
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Who am I supposed to have admitted I am?

WTF?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Sun 17th July 2011, 4:37pm
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



According to Arbcom, we are the same person, and we are also Guido IV, Destroying Angela and StevieNic (who is still editing, btw), and a bunch of unknown others. tongue.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Mon 18th July 2011, 4:15pm
Post #11


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sun 17th July 2011, 5:37pm) *

According to Arbcom, we are the same person, and we are also Guido IV, Destroying Angela and StevieNic (who is still editing, btw), and a bunch of unknown others. tongue.gif


To be honest, Guido, I don't know why you would want to stay in the so-called Wikipedia Community. Wading through this load of codswallop- where various anons make these unsubstantiated claims about the CFS/ME name evolution, about patients etc. shows that they are POV pushers themselves- or just parrotting their POV pushing friends.

Then they expect you to act like a 'rehabilitated' Stepford Wife.

The McCarthyist obsession with sockpuppets is ridiculous- but when they get it so wrong so that innocent outsiders like myself (and you, for that matter) are wrongly accused of such things- it's just all so LAME! yak.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Mon 18th July 2011, 7:41pm
Post #12


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Mon 18th July 2011, 12:15pm) *
QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Sun 17th July 2011, 5:37pm) *
According to Arbcom, we are the same person, and we are also Guido IV, Destroying Angela and StevieNic (who is still editing, btw), and a bunch of unknown others. tongue.gif
To be honest, Guido, I don't know why you would want to stay in the so-called Wikipedia Community. Wading through this load of codswallop- where various anons make these unsubstantiated claims about the CFS/ME name evolution, about patients etc. shows that they are POV pushers themselves- or just parrotting their POV pushing friends.
The core has never really understood this. Most experts will be "POV-pushers," of one kind or another. People become experts in two ways: by formal training and profession, and by experience. Whether amateur or professional, an expert, as I've defining the term, will know far more about the topic than random Wikipedia editors.

Now, if it were a matter of simply enforcing behavioral guidelines, fine. Everyone should follow the guidelines, and they usually make sense. However, determining "POV pushing" or "tendentious editing," almost inevitably, involves some level of content judgment. Making content judgments without knowing the sources well is very, very hazardous. And that's exactly what they do. I have no idea if Guido and Angela's position is "majority" or "minority" POV, and to really know that, itself, would involve substantial research. It really should not matter.

What the cabal has done, commonly, is to confuse Talk page "POV-pushing" with actual conflict over the article, through revert warring, say, to maintain "correct" text. Experts can easily fall into this, and it's rightfully prohibited. But experts who do this should be restrained; I proposed treating all experts as if they were COI, and, I suggest, that makes sense. COI editors are expected to have POV! But COI editors, almost intrinsically, are relatively expert on the topic where they are COI. Therefore we would want the opinion of these experts, to advise us, but not to control us, "us" being the non-experts that the encyclopedia is supposedly written for!
QUOTE
Then they expect you to act like a 'rehabilitated' Stepford Wife.
The Wikipedia not-bureaucracy, in spite of claiming that decisions don't set precedents, treats prior decisions as if necessarily correct, as proven fact. So if ArbComm has banned you, you must be guilty as charged, and, therefore, if you don't admit it, you "haven't learned your lesson."

It's arrogant and offensive.

Yet when admins make mistakes, ArbComm will often, if it ever gets that far, "admonish" them, and care not at all if the admins have acknowledged error, and there is no monitoring of compliance, normally. Only if some editor gets a bug about some particular admin will a matter be taken back to ArbComm, and editors who do that, if they are not administrators, have a low survival rate. They are "troublemakers," they are "not collaborative," they are "tendentious," and, since they are trying to prove something that is sometimes difficult to prove, that takes substantial evidence, they "write too much."

To ArbComm, it's obvious how to solve this problem: shoot the messenger, who is obviously, they think, trying to harass an administrator. They are all administrators, so where is their natural sympathy?

It's a total structural set-up. A minority of arbitrators do realize the problem, sometimes, and find themselves isolated and outvoted, rapidly.
QUOTE
The McCarthyist obsession with sockpuppets is ridiculous- but when they get it so wrong so that innocent outsiders like myself (and you, for that matter) are wrongly accused of such things- it's just all so LAME! yak.gif
They have to have someone to blame for Wikipedia dysfunction. God forbid they would look at themselves!

I found that, after being banned from Cold fusion for well over a year, I was still being blamed for the sorry state of the article, even though I'd actually not edited it much and most of my edits had been immediately reverted by Hipocrite. There was a brief exception where I'd made an edit, Hipocrite reverted, and he was reverted by a series of editors, so he went to RfPP, requested protection, then went back and edited the article, last time, having reverted his previous change so he couldn't be accused so easily of revert warring, to a totally outrageous version basically pulled from his butt. The article was protected in that state.

It was when I was trying to find editorial consensus quickly on the Talk page, to fix this mess, that I was banned by William M. Connolley, for .... uh, for .... uh ... he never did explain. I had found consensus (including Hipocrite!), but he ignored it and returned the article to a version before a whole series of changes that had been accepted.... Knowing full well that this would be controversial, he acknowledged that in his edit summary.

This was the situation that ArbComm reviewed in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, where I was found to be impossibly tendentious. I don't think they actually read the evidence. Who needed evidence when there were two dozen editors (practically the entire global warming/anti-pseudoscience cabal) screaming at me, with only a handful of editors defending?

This, then, became the basis for everything that followed.

And this has happened to so many people who were or became expert on article topics. In my case, I'd been aware of cold fusion in 1989, and had assumed, like nearly everyone else, that CF had been conclusively rejected. It was only when I started to read the twenty years of ensuing research publications that I came to the conclusion that an error had been made, but my goal, from the beginning, was not to make the article reflect my conclusion, but merely that it reflect what was in the strongest sources. It still doesn't, it relies on weak sources by comparison with what is available. From the article, you would never know why so many scientists are now considering cold fusion as real (though many also still consider it to have been conclusively rejected). The positive evidence, as found in peer-reviewed secondary sources, has been actively excluded, and anyone who "pushes" for inclusion of any of it will immediately be suspected of being me. As was the case with Nrcprm2026 before, for a long time, though that puppet master wasn't really an expert, but better informed than average.

So? If a sock asserts text, accurately citing peer-reviewed reliable secondary source, what should be done with it? IAR suggests that the status of the editor matters not at all. But the "core" consistently places their own Authority above the supposed goal of the project.

I can understand why, but this is nevertheless a failure of a fundamental policy, neutrality, in favor of formalism, a "ban is a ban."

Since I do accept the goals of the project, and as these goals are defined in policy, and since due process, respecting ArbComm's authority, ultimately failed, it's my obligation to defeat this corruption, through minimally disruptive means. That's what I've been doing, little by little.

I, and others like me, are holding the project to its stated goals, the goals that have invited and attracted so many, for so long.

Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedia actually followed policy, finding ways to implement it that were both efficient and effective? Status quo won't cut it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Angela Kennedy
post Tue 19th July 2011, 6:54am
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun 30th Sep 2007, 8:05am
Member No.: 3,293

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Thanks for taking the time to answer me here Abd.

I guess my position is different to yours, in that I was never 'part of the project' as such. I just went in when initially because I saw some problems in how an at the time colleague was being treated by Guy Chapman and JFW (and the attacks quickly turned on me), though I did add an external link to my own work initially (before I understood the no OR rule etc.)

The second time I went in was because Sciencewatcher and JFW were about to enshrine unreliable sources in the Simon Wessely article to basically make some very nasty, prejudicial and unsubstantiated claims about the ME/CFS community and their supporters. I acknolwedged my own COI so undertook NOT to edit- but just to explain the problems on the Talk page.

Without going into detail, JFW, Sciencewatcher, Guy chapman are serious POV pushers on this whole subject. But their POV pushing is tolerated.

But my point is, I am NOT and have never been a supporter of the project. My only concern is to mitigate real world effects of the publication of prejudicial misinformation about a patient community and their supporters (in this instance, though I'm also involved with other real world projects) whether that occurs on Wikipedia, parliament, newspapers, or, as recently, in the British Medical Journal.

After what you've written, I can have more understanding of why people might want to still be part of the project, even though as we can all see it is intensely dysfunctional. But it is not my own wish. My position now- especially as an academic myself and one who teaches - is about how Wikipedia is controlling the dissemination of knowledge, information and misinformation (that's because I'm an old-fashioned conflict theory sociologist), but also about how Wikipedia, with its massive dysfunctional ideological position and other dysfunction, is being pushed at educators and academics, which i think is extremely worrying.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Tue 19th July 2011, 6:16pm
Post #14


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Angela Kennedy @ Tue 19th July 2011, 2:54am) *
Thanks for taking the time to answer me here Abd.

I guess my position is different to yours, in that I was never 'part of the project' as such. I just went in when initially because I saw some problems in how an at the time colleague was being treated by Guy Chapman and JFW (and the attacks quickly turned on me), though I did add an external link to my own work initially (before I understood the no OR rule etc.)
I became active on Wikipedia because I was involved with voting systems, and saw gross misbehavior taking place at Instant runoff voting. However, this dovetailed with long-term interests, and I rapidly became very generally involved. I've been known, recently, for my involvement with Cold fusion, even though I originally had no COI there, at all -- and I was skeptical --, but when I was being banned by ArbComm I realized that I was far more interested in cold fusion than in Wikipedia, so it was a nice trade. When my original ban expired, I declared COI and followed COI rules, which were absolutely not enough to protect me, the same people pushed for a renewed ban without any problematic article editing: Enric Naval, JzG, etc. These people are serious POV-pushers, unrestrained and, effectively, encouraged by ArbComm.
QUOTE
The second time I went in was because Sciencewatcher and JFW were about to enshrine unreliable sources in the Simon Wessely article to basically make some very nasty, prejudicial and unsubstantiated claims about the ME/CFS community and their supporters. I acknolwedged my own COI so undertook NOT to edit- but just to explain the problems on the Talk page. Without going into detail, JFW, Sciencewatcher, Guy chapman are serious POV pushers on this whole subject. But their POV pushing is tolerated.
You noticed.
QUOTE
But my point is, I am NOT and have never been a supporter of the project. My only concern is to mitigate real world effects of the publication of prejudicial misinformation about a patient community and their supporters (in this instance, though I'm also involved with other real world projects) whether that occurs on Wikipedia, parliament, newspapers, or, as recently, in the British Medical Journal.
My point is that Wikipedia, if it is to realize its fundamental neutrality policy, needs people like you. Sure, there should be behavioral restrictions, but if you followed COI policy, it should not be a problem. Yes, there can still be problems with Talk page participation, but there are rather simple solutions to those. Instead, the POV-pushers like JzG use Talk page discussion as an excuse to get rid of POVs that they detest, and editors, especially, who expose their ignorant bullshit. It's blatant.
QUOTE
After what you've written, I can have more understanding of why people might want to still be part of the project, even though as we can all see it is intensely dysfunctional. But it is not my own wish. My position now- especially as an academic myself and one who teaches - is about how Wikipedia is controlling the dissemination of knowledge, information and misinformation (that's because I'm an old-fashioned conflict theory sociologist), but also about how Wikipedia, with its massive dysfunctional ideological position and other dysfunction, is being pushed at educators and academics, which i think is extremely worrying.
Check out Wikiversity. If you have any time and inclination, you can build good educational resources there. Original research is allowed. There is an overall neutrality policy, but that can be handled by how material is framed. It's highly inclusive. Ask me if you have any questions. Guido has been active there, from time to time. Maybe he could help, if he keeps himself out of trouble, he has a tendency to shoot himself in the foot.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Guido den Broeder
post Wed 20th July 2011, 11:20am
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined: Thu 19th Feb 2009, 7:31pm
Member No.: 10,371



As a pacifist, I am unable to shoot anyone anywhere. smile.gif

I entered Wikipedia for the same reason as Angela.

The difference is that I then also did some editing, in several areas where I am knowledgeable. It transpired, that that's not the true purpose of the project.

Cheers,

Guido
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Wed 20th July 2011, 4:32pm
Post #16


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Guido den Broeder @ Wed 20th July 2011, 7:20am) *
As a pacifist, I am unable to shoot anyone anywhere. smile.gif
Somehow, shooting yourself in the foot seems to be allows. I know, makes no sense.
QUOTE
I entered Wikipedia for the same reason as Angela.

The difference is that I then also did some editing, in several areas where I am knowledgeable. It transpired, that that's not the true purpose of the project.
Well, what's the purpose? Who says?

The problem is that the declared purpose and the structure don't match. And then, when what obviously would follow from that mismatch takes place, those attached to the status quo need someone to blame.

Like you. Fringe POV-pusher! You and the vandals and paid editors. If not for having to deal with the likes-o-you, Wikipedia would be about perfect by now!

Oh, and the critics, too, of course. Instead of whining, why don't they just fix some spelling errors?

And then they create even more useless work for themselves, banning and enforcing bans, when the structure makes them unenforceable. It invites abuse.

It's crucial, starting up something like Wikipedia, to get the structure right for the purpose, or at least reliably mutable into something that will become right, at the beginning, because vested participants will always develop inequitable power. Large social structures like the Wikipedia community don't change easily, at all, once they are in place.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st 10 14, 10:49pm