User talk:Guido den Broeder

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on this wiki.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Meta due to Ad hominem and trolling. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, and privacy violations are considered vandalism, and will not be tolerated. If you believe the block was placed in error, you may place an unblock request on your talk page using {{unblock|reasons for unblock here}}. Unblock tools: block log • gblock log • blocklist • stalktoy • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

— regards, Revi 15:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a time that we didn't allow admins to silence the opposition in their own personal conflict. We called that abuse of rights and it was grounds for an immediate desysop. Of course, if you think it's wise to block the founder of Wikisage for making himself available as a public speaker, then by all means leave it so. It diminishes the WMF, not me. That is all from me, there is nothing more that needs saying. I was and remain a retired user. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In response to @Billinghurst: I would love to be more active but illness prevents this. I am in constant pain, struggle to stay conscious, and suffer from collapses, including a major one yesterday. However, 'bringing value' to Meta is not a requirement. Users need access to Meta because they work on the projects. Your position that 'my attempt to add myself to the Public Speakers list was bound to fail' is weird since I was on that list and had been for years, with the support of the community. There is no requirement to be block-free, or even to be in good standing anywhere. It's not relevant, everyone is allowed to add themselves and we welcome different views. Your statement about xwiki edits, meanwhile, is puzzling. Does this mean that you no longer accuse me of using a range of sockpuppets? If not, then you are not impartial, and your claim that I have no edits to speak of makes no sense. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no existing claims about you and your use/abuse/misuse of sockpuppets. If I had a previous position years ago when I was a steward, they are no longer in my active memory, nor do I care to dig.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: Since no diffs were provided, I assume that this is about the exchange on Revi's talk. Pointing Revi to the exemptions section of the en:editwar policy (reverting blanking or libel is not editwarring) is not trolling, especially since I am one of the authors of that policy and Revi appeared unfamiliar with it. Voicing one's opinion that Revi isn't fit for duty, while inevitably ad hominem, is not an offense but a basic right of any user. Revi makes an error (note that they no longer accuse me of editwarring) and then attempts to cover that up by removing the user that they wronged. The first is not a big deal, everyone makes mistakes, but the second is. Note that we have been here two times before over the same Public Speakers list, that those blocks were overturned, and that shortly after you agreed with my assessment of those administrators. Decline reason: I undertook a review of your edits at this wiki, and did not find them to be constructive, nor supportive of the aims of this wiki. I found your approach to other users problematic, and from my review, I find the block reasons more accurate than your claims in defence.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

Note to reviewing administrator: Please do not unblock this user. See consensus for the block here, as well as the user’s disruptive behavior xwiki. Vermont (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

'Consensus' by your own !vote. Care to explain your accusation regarding xwiki, and why that would carry any weight? Who were you before you became user:Vermont? Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

And this is a plain example of the aggressive behaviour... The Banner (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: now this is interesting.[1] So earlier this year, when you were blocked, you claimed to understand that undoing a BLP violation is not editwarring. But today not only do you seem to have forgotten, you are demanding an eternal block for someone who did the undoing, while you only got one day for the doing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, talk page access while blocked is only for discussing your block. Not for personal attacks on other users. The Banner (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with BLP's or content. This is metawiki, not a content wiki or anything governed by BLP policy. Furthermore, I will clarify that my breach of 3RR in that case was due to a misunderstanding of BLP exemption policy, where your issue here is personal attacks, intimidating behavior, and harassment. Vermont (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of truth, I still accuse him of edit warring. That was taken into consideration when I blocked him. — regards, Revi 03:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Request reason: Can we have a review by an uninvolved admin, please. Billinghurst has recently accused me of sockpuppetry, without evidence, and didn't withdraw this accusation. I understand that involved users are eager to put an end to my presence and fantasize about me in the worst possible light but really, that is not the way. I have already apologized for my tone of voice, so I'm unsure what else I can do but I'm always open to suggestions. The only thing that I'm 'guilty' of is undoing a little vandalism. Nobody has contested this. So surely you can understand that I was a little upset. Yet BAM, suddenly I am indeffed, and everybody cheers? That is hard to believe. My purpose on Meta is limited, as explained above. I maintain my user page here, that's about it. As far as I know, that's generally considered constructive. Decline reason: The block is valid , see Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Guido_den_Broeder. Therfore i clsoe this unblock request as declined. If you use this talkpage for disruption, talkpage access might be revoced. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC) বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

block log gblock log blocklist stalktoy guc unblock gunblock contribs: +/-

Just an advice: can you address the reason for your block(i.e. personal attacks properly), this will just get your TPA revoked. --Cohaf (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'm not blocked for personal attacks, nor did I set out to make any. However, the eye of the reader decides. If some comments are experienced as a personal attack, I'm always willing to reword them as I have shown in the past. Btw for myself I don't care, I get so many personal attacks that I can't possibly keep up so I let them go. There are far worse things in this world. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Mate, your block reason is "Ad hominem", so yes, it's personal attacks or attacks against a person in some sort. Hope this clarifies.--Cohaf (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(...) nor did I set out to make any. Are you absolutely sure about that? As I take this as a plain personal attack: For some background: The Banner is a long-time cyberbully under a range of account names. Nemo is a serial copyright violator. I got punitively indeffed on nl:Wikipedia for reporting a crime (sexual harassment) to the police. Do the math. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC) The Banner (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Yes, I have changed my username twice in 12 years.

Cohaf, While personal attacks are always ad hominem, the reverse is not true, ad hominem is a more general notion. That said, if Revi is willing to indicate what exactly he perceives as ad hominem, we may still get this resolved in a way that we both can live with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Do take note of this and another of your unblock reason is trolling.--Cohaf (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

There is more info here[2]. I'm pretty sure that I didn't do any trolling, and I certainly never meant to, but again, it's in the eye of the beholder and Revi provided no diffs. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@The Banner: If you recognize that you were wrong to blank my entry at Public speakers, and withdraw your comments here[3][4][5], I'm perfectly willing to drop my comment about you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me just point to General McAullife's short reply on the German request for the surrender of Bastogne. The Banner (talk) 09:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I made no such accusation about sockpuppetry, you are mistaken.

  And this continuing cycling through people who disagree with you and calling them "involved" is complete hocus. "Involved" is an interaction. My making reviewing comment at M:RFH where you have asked for a review, in no way could be called "involved". Can you please stop with such an approach, and the conversation here should be over. Nobody has agreed with your position, so reflect, and stop blaming and insulting other people. We wish you all the best with your wiki, and your health.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

• I am rarely mistaken. You hopped onto that bandwagon June 2017. That is why you are involved, not because of some 'cycling' that only exists in your mind and is yet another false accusation.

• I am innocent of all your ridiculous charges, you make no attempt to provide any evidence and can't even agree on which of them applies ...

• From your last sentence it's obvious that you didn't even bother to look what it was all about. 'We' wish you the best with your wiki? Laughable. 'You' lot post hateful comments like this one by The Banner which started this little incident every day. 'You' are punishing the victim here. Among all 'your' insults, the least 'you' could do is not insult my intelligence.

• Not satisfied even with a lifelong punitive block for starting my own wiki, 'you' escalate further and are now calling me a pedophile and compare me to a Nazi. Great going. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Added note: mentioning that users call you a pedophile and a Nazi now qualifies as 'an attack on other users'.[6] Calling someone a pedophile or a Nazi, on the other hand, is considered perfectly OK. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

References