Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder

The following request for comments is closed. Consensus to ban --Superpes15 (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Guido den Broeder (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) has a reputation for being a long-term problem user, frequently engaging in personal attacks, sockpuppetry and ad hominem remarks in various projects. They have been blocked indefinitely on four Wikimedia sites, including Meta. It's evident from innumerable discussions that their sole intention is to create drama.

Furthermore, Guido has been promoting Wikisage, a website they founded, essentially a clone of Wikipedia aimed at "free thinkers." You can read more about their behaviour on c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems and c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 100#Guido den Broeder.

The continued incivility, sockpuppetry and self-promotion have led me to where we stand today.

(on that note, I'm not going to decorate this page as have been done in past nominations)

Blocks

The projects they are blocked are as follows (dates highlight the last block entry):

Wikimedia Commons by Yann on January 12, 2024, for "NOTHERE, etc. see ANU."
Meta-Wiki by Billinghurst on December 25, 2018, for "Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Ad hominem and trolling; further attacks, so removing talk page access."
Dutch Wikipedia by MoiraMoira on March 12, 2017 for "bewerkingsblokkadeontduiking."
English Wikipedia by TonyBallioni on September 11, 2019 for socking.

Sockpuppets

ETA: please add any more to this list if there are any that have been missed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

w:en:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Guido den Broeder. All of them are locked.
A previous global lock at Steward requests/Global/2022-w36#Global lock for Guido den Broeder was marked not done.
ETA: Special:CentralAuth/Wegwezen
Special:CentralAuth/Lord Jelbyhat

Formalities

Criteria

As per the global bans policy, this user meets all three criteria:

The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. – Y, much of their cross-wiki abuse is due to incivility and self-promotion, not vandalism or spam.
The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had a fair opportunity to rectify any problems. – Y, been given several warnings on Commons.
The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. – Y (refer to Blocks section above).

Nominator requirements

have a Wikimedia account; – Y
and be registered for more than six months before making the request; – Y (account created on January 25, 2021).
and have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis). – Y (148,872 edits as of January 13, 2024).

Refer to Special:CentralAuth/SHB2000 for the last two points.

Final required steps

Confirm that the user satisfies all criteria for global bans: Y Confirmed
File a new request for comment on Meta: Y Done
Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active: Y Done by SHB2000.
Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited: Y Done by SHB2000.

That's it from me. As of typing this, the last two steps are in progress which will be done soon. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by other users

comment from billinghurst

User has been blocked with user talk page access removed since 2018; first block at metawiki was 2010

Guido den Broeder block log at metawiki

I removed their user talk page access as they had continued the behaviour that had them blocked on metawiki from their user talk page. I try not to remember those who try to make people's wiki editing experience unpleasant, so have no further personal comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2024-1-27 Under good faith, slabs of commentary that was deemed unhelpful by a user was excised from the RFC. RFCs are what they are and no user gets the right to unilaterally excise commentary. I have returned the page to it status quo. I will also note that the person whose commentary was removed has been blocked from editing at metawiki for the reason cited as "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". — billinghurst sDrewth 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from De Wikischim

FEI: GdB just wrote this note in defense on his own talk page on the Dutch version of Wikibooks. (I suppose he does it that way because he can no longer edit here on Meta.) --De Wikischim (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@De Wikischim: billinghurst adjusted their talk page settings so they can edit their Meta talk page, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your notification. De Wikischim (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Guido den Broeder

Comment The nominated user is blocked at metawiki, and had had their user talk page removed. For the purposes of due process, I have reinstated their user talk page access so that they can respond to this RfC. Comment there will need to be moved over where appropriate. I will also note that there is still the expectation that civil response would still be required to retain that user talk page access. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the deleted contributions shows two deleted edits only, so essentially their editing activity at metawiki is visible. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
They've written a response, but on nl.wb, which I've pasted below from b:nl:Overleg gebruiker:Guido den Broeder#Response. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the second, but the third attempt to get me removed over the same ancient stuff, so I will be brief.

My case does not satisfy the criteria for a global ban:

Global bans are exclusively applied where multiple independent communities have previously elected to ban a user for a pattern of abuse.

I am not banned on any WMF wiki, let alone multiple ones.

Where I am blocked, this is not for a 'pattern of abuse'.

I am a user in good standing on many WMF projects. My contributions have always been constructive and I always seek consensus when someone has a different point of view.

Since the introduction of global accounts, I have always edited with a single account (previously I had two local accounts, which I discontinued). I strongly believe that people should be accountable for what they say and do, which is why I edit in my real name. The accounts listed as my 'sockpuppets' all have IP addresses which are different from mine, which is a fixed IP address that I can't change. As far as I can see none of them ever violated policy; they were blocked out of the blue. At least two of them were minors.

My account was (obviously) not blocked on nl:wikipedia, or I would not have been able to make an edit. The administrator who blocked me for 'block evasion' was subsequently desysoped and permabanned for abusing her tools. Previously, my local account was blocked when another administrator demanded certain personal off-wiki favors in return for my right to edit, and I refused.

On en:wikipedia I was blocked after an administrator called me a pedophile, which was promptly believed by others. This administrator was subsequently desysoped and WMF-banned.

On meta, a user vandalized the one page that I managed there, and continued by calling me a Nazi and spamming e-mails in which I was depicted as a child molester. When I pointed out that this user had little credibility, I got blocked for 'trolling'.

On commons, an administrator accused me of vandalizing a page. I hadn't. When I pointed that out, he blocked me for 'not being here'. However, Commons has no such policy. As far as I know, when you upload a few images this doesn't come with an obligation to work on the wiki. I am very ill and living on borrowed time. There is only so much I can do.

None of these blocks have anything to do with me as an editor. What is happening instead, is that some users dislike what I do in real life.

I am a published scientist, politician and chess master. When users on nl:wikipedia found out in 2007, they retroactively introduced a new rule that users weren't allowed to reference their own work, which I had on 4 of the 200 pages that I had worked on. They continued to harass me on- and off-wiki ever since.

I am the chair of my national patient organization as well as of the international organization of patient advocates. On en:wikipedia, users decided in 2007 that my disease doesn't exist (despite its inclusion in the ICD) and creating an article about it is still strictly forbidden today. Everyone who disagrees gets accused of being me, or one other user who is no longer alive to defend herself.

When I started the non-profit project Wikisage in 2008, many users considered this an attack on the WMF, and the WMF itself changed its license to prohibit users from copying Wikisage articles to Wikipedia. However, we support the original purpose of Wikipedia and help to achieve this goal. We have good relations with the local WMF chapter, and Wikisage is considered digital heritage by the Royal Dutch Library. nl:Wikisage has 66K articles created and edited by over 400 active users. Due to Dutch law I haven't been able to contribute anything substantial myself for a decade, yet any link to Wikisage is viewed as self-promotion by me.

In 2015, I founded a micronation. Some users took offense over the first article of our constitution, which states that every citizen has the right to fair treatment, or simply because it was founded by me. There are a thousand micronations and they all have uploaded their flag and other images, but for reasons unknown these users consider our micronation as 'not real' and our flag as 'out of scope', in spite of various real-world activities.

In 2017, I participated in a feature film (horror thriller) with a Russian child model (now 18) in one of the leading roles. There were over a hundred other participants, but somehow users on wikipedia took offense and considered it their job to voice all sorts of suspicions.

And that's all there is to see. Guido den Broeder (overleg) 13 jan 2024 16:20 (CET)

response at user's local talk page supplied; though essentially is above, so collapsing

Responding to individual complaints

There are only a few actual complaints, none of which comes close to what the policy considers worthy of a global ban. I will address them nonetheless.

incivility - Stop saying things about me or others that aren't true and you will find me kind, generous and patient.
self-promotion - Uploading an image of your national flag is not self-promotion, and neither is linking to another encyclopedia than Wikipedia for background information.
operates a wiki where he as the owner allows attack page of Wikimedians - We only allow articles and essays, attack pages are not acceptable. If you see one, provide the link and it will be dealt with.
harassment and legal threats - Never in my life have I harassed a person or made a legal threat against someone.
impersonating an administrator across multiple projects - I have been an administrator on a range of projects for over half a century, as well as a board member, a developer, a designer, a producer, and so forth. But not on any WMF wiki, and I never said I was. Wikiversity invited me to apply for custodianship once, but the place got into disarray before we could go forward with it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
has a many years long history of "contributing" to multiple WMF projects about essentially one subject only, i.e. Guido den Broeder - I have not been active on nl:wikipedia since 2008. At the time, chess users asked me to write a small article about myself as a chess player. I haven't been active on en:wikipedia since 2009, except for a few months in 2017. I didn't write an article about myself there, nor on any other WMF wiki. The single photo of me on Commons was uploaded in 2022 by Mdd.
lock evasion - This is my global account, carrying my own name. It is not locked. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here was definitely socket puppeting going on as the user Lyrda and The Jolly Bard has the same singular focus on this one obscure russian child actor - She has some 7 million followers, so statistically some of them are bound to be on Wikipedia. There is no claim that Lyrda is my sockpuppet. The Jolly Bard's checkuser didn't match. He only showed a brief interest in the topic after he was accused of being me. As for me, I gave up on Wikipedia in 2008. As a courtesy, I released some pictures that I took of her in 2017, and corrected some errors in her articles on various wikis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the rest of his uploaded commons photos are all things related to his own obscure micronation - Paraduin Productions was one of the companies involved in the production of The Russian Bride, so all my uploads are connected to the micronation. However, I uploaded only a few images. None have been deleted. The images that show the location of the micronation's territory on the Danube were uploaded by other users. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the former account was blocked for the first time in June 2007 because of abuse of sock puppets. - There was an allegation that I used a sockpuppet for a single edit. I provided evidence that this wasn't a sockpuppet, but merely my friend W.R. who had made this one edit on my computer. This is why the checkuser was a match and as a consequence my IP was sitting in your illegal CU Wiki when The Jolly Bard edited in 2014, available for comparison that was never performed.
several blocks and ArbCom interventions followed - All these blocks were overturned by the community until their right to do so was taken away.
under the condition you would accept mentoring by an admin the block was lifted. This was initiated in Oct 2007 but came to an end in July 2008 because of several escalations: even during this mentorship period you received 7 blocks from or supported by the mentor - the 'mentorship' only lasted one day, when the 'mentor' demanded that I should 'see' him in real life to keep my right to edit. Arbcom refused to hear my case, and the community had been silenced, so I stopped contributing until the assigned period had passed. Then this 'mentor' refused to abandon his position, so I quit.
ArbCom decided for an indefinite block after the final straw of a legal threat - When someone commits a crime against me, I am allowed to take legal measures. The fact that this person was on Wikipedia didn't magically turn that into an offense, and I didn't announce it on-wiki. I simply reported this 'mentor' to the police.
same about the opinion of the Royal Dutch Library. Wikisage hosts copies of nl.wikipedia articles, especially ones we per our DR procedure would nominate for deletion, for instance for copyright violations: the Royal Library know better than to get involved in these kind of practices. - If you see a copyright violation, you can always bring that to our attention. The letter from the Royal Dutch Library can be found here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your article has been deleted for a total of 4 times because of problems with notability - As a chess master, who among other things ended high in national championships, wrote seven tournament books, and is mentioned in many reliable sources, I easily satisfy the criteria set by the chess community on Wikipedia. This is why the chess community tried to reinstate my article several times, which was thwarted by your friend the former admin who indeed seems to edit again under a new name. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they have failed on nlwiki, enwiki, meta and commons - No evidence of any failure on my part has been presented. There is instead a wealth of evidence for a lack of due process. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as for The Jolly Bard, its user page explicitly states confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Guido den Broeder. Not just suspected, but confirmed. - An en:wikipedia administrator assumed that there was a CU match on nl:wikipedia. There wasn't. Apparently, the next administrator added to that mistake by concluding that there had been a CU match on en:wikipedia. Please keep in mind that en:Arbcom had already looked into these allegations when they unblocked me in 2017, and considered them without merit. Note that The Jolly Bard edited on Wikisage during 2015-2017 where checkuser is also available. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
repeatedly impersonating an administrator and then refusing to clarify what site he's an admin of - Asking you to stop being rude to new users in your deletion requests, as I did exactly once, is not 'impersonating an administrator'. That you refused to listen and got blocked was entirely your own fault. Meanwhile, demanding private information in exchange for someone's right to edit is offensive (other words apply here as well). Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I defended Ikan Kekek - I found you and your mentor Ikan Kekek supporting an attempt to glorify a country by rewriting history through inadequately named images, incorrectly interpreting INUSE as both of you often do. My view prevailed (the file was renamed) and since then you have continued to harass me at every opportunity, culminating in this absurd global ban discussion in which all your claims are fabricated. By the way, is there a reason why you left out an essential part of my defense? Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering questions

did we take into account the rarity of film set photos? - When Kristina's mother wanted to add a photo to her article and correct a few errors, she was immediately threatened with a block by en:wikipedia administrators. That is why she left it to me to take care of things. Of course I can only release pictures that I took myself but I have lots, not just from The Russian Bride but also from other movies. As things stand, however, they will not become available to Commons. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
show that there is at least one wiki, whether it's a Wikipedia in any language or Wikidata or Commons, in which you have done many many good edits and no more than a few bad edits, in which no one has even accused you of bullying or doxing, whether the accusation was true or not - I don't have many many edits anywhere because I have been severely ill since 1987. However, I submit nl:wikipedia, en:wikipedia, de:wikipedia and nl:wikibooks. By the way, you may want to read this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
about the issue of self-promotion: I suppose this is about the articles GdB apparently wrote about himself? - The only article I ever wrote here about myself was a short chess article in 2007, on request. It was not promotional, just providing some data to fill a small gap in the list of notable chess players. At the time this was allowed and there were in fact instructions for how to create an article about yourself. I was not blocked for it then, so it eludes me why I should be globally banned for it 17 years later. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how does it work? Is this now a mere vote despite the "request for comments" name? - I don't know, nobody has bothered to explain the procedure to me. There is so much fundamentally wrong here. Why is the accuser allowed to just make things up without evidence? Why is there no independent investigation before a trial commences? Why hasn't a defender been assigned with the possibility to call witnesses for the defense? How can accuser and witnesses be allowed to vote? How can numerous people vote without hearing the defense? And so forth. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reacting to comments

harassments/threats is a serious issue - Indeed it is, and if I ever were to do such a thing, you could have the beginning of a case. Meanwhile, I have been on the receiving end of harassment and threats pretty much non-stop, and very little has been done about it. It was the WMF that banned one of the attackers, while the community considered him a hero. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
bullying is unacceptable - Indeed it is, and if I would ever do such a thing, it could lead to a local block of something like one day, although it usually doesn't and people just move on. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
spreading misinformation about other users is very much a form of online harassment - Indeed it is, and you should all stop doing this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP295 is now blocked - The supporters have now started to eliminate the opposers. Nothing has changed in 17 years. Guido den Broeder (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

My IP, until sometime in 2021 due to KPN taking over XS4All, was 62.251.30.182, as evidenced by this IP talk. I edited on en:wikipedia in 2008/10 and then for a short while in 2017. A checkuser was done for The Jolly Bard, but only to confirm his alts. There was plenty of opportunity to compare my IP to his and those of several dozen other alleged sockpuppets, but it never happened.
Natuur12 started editing on nl:wikipedia in 2012.[1] We've never met. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link to discussion on Wikidata.[2]
Several weeks after a parcel of land on the Danube was claimed for Paraduin, a minor Czech politican heard about this and tried to begin Liberland on the same territory (not possible by international law). Liberland is not a micronation, it is a scam, heavily leaning on a puffery Wikipedia article by some of their github users to attract gullible readers that have to pay 10,000 euro to one day become a 'citizen'. They didn't even know the name of the territory and stil don't know the name of the island. But as usual, Wikipedia administrators have this upside down and instead of opposing the scam, they wiped Paraduin from history. (The fact that people on the other side of the river used to speak Hungarian has been wiped from Wikipedia history as well.) This is the real reason why they blocked The Jolly Bard on en:wikipedia, who named Paraduin in the Liberland article. Since he hadn't violated any policy, they had to make something up. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not Chescargot, who seems to be writing an article about me on nl:wikipedia.[3] I don't know who they are, and I have no contact with them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guido has now released a final statement on their talk page – I'll paste it in a separate section. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My questions
[edit]

What is the purpose of an RfC on Meta, who gets to decide what happens, and when?

Why have parts of my defense not been copied to the RfC page?

Ariandi Lie, why did you block me on id:wikipedia without warning, discussion or evaluation? Why did you revert my edits to the Kristina Pimenova article, thereby reinserting incorrect information? Guido den Broeder (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Background
[edit]

In the 1970s and 1980s, and ever since, I have advocated in favor of sharing human knowledge. I wasn't the only one. Some of the first products on my path were the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings and the Encyclopaedia of Econometrics, to which I contributed. As an active member of Ecozoek, I was instrumental in the creation of a repository of research data, freely available to all researchers. I also developed database software (Ecobase), including an interpreter and a text editor.
During a brainstorm session I came up with the idea of a hypertext encyclopedia, where knowledgeable people would share advances in human knowledge. Unfortunately, in 1987 I fell ill with myalgic encephalomyelitis, a polio-type vascular disorder of the central nervous system, and all my activities came to a full stop.
In 2006, as a representative of my patient organization, one of my tasks was to improve information about ME on the internet. Wikipedia was merely one of a hundred sites with random garbage on this topic. However, when I arrived, I became full of hope that my idea of two decades before had somehow been realized.
As it turned out, this was not the case. Wikipedia is something else entirely, a social experiment to see how far people will go under rules that reward evildoing. But the good news was that the mediawiki software is available to everyone. So I quit and in 2008 I started Wikisage. A few weeks later my bank went bankrupt, but not before they stole all my savings and claimed my house. Subsequently the city of Rotterdam denied me welfare multiple times. I won all these cases but they simply did it again and again. During much of 2013-1016, I was entirely without means.
Later in 2016 and early in 2017 I won some major cases, however by that time a new law had been introduced in the Netherlands that forbids people on welfare to do anything that can be construed as work.
I briefly returned to Wikipedia in 2017 for the sole reason of protecting young miss Pimenova from harm. A few weeks ago she turned 18 and I became a pensioner at the same time, setting both of us free. I expect an opportunity to take new pictures this year.
To summarize, I have always been no more than a visiting doctor here, and never an inmate. The idea that I was busily editing with a range of alternate accounts, on a project that I considered a total failure, while standing in line at the foodbank for survival, fighting in court, or lying in bed with severe pain, thereby risking my chances to regain an income, is preposterous, as well as a gross overestimation of your importance. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

So what happens next?
[edit]

Regardless of the outcome of this absurdly skewed procedure, absolutely nothing will happen to me. I may or may not do some edits on Wikibooks. There will certainly be no more contributions by me to Commons. I have a thousand pictures that I finally can upload, but that will be under a new license, one that excludes the WMF. None of this affects my life.
A lot will change for the WMF though, but you can't see that from the inside, so there is no point talking about it. This equally won't involve me.

Comments

Support

Support as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hári Zalán (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For completeness: Wegwezen (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC • CA) preceded the current account. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guido den Broeder denies in their reply of 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC) (see also collapsed response in the previous section) that they indulged in sockpuppeting through Lyrda and The Jolly Bard. Hard to believe, considering Lyrda created Category:Photographs by Guido den Broeder, which is just too much of a coincidence for such a specific page. As for The Jolly Bard, its user page explicitly states confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Guido den Broeder. Not just suspected, but confirmed. This continuous denial over years of editing, even with ducks quacking in megaphones, demonstrates the user is unlikely to ever magically change their attitude and conduct. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason not to ban this user. Per nominator and nominator's comment, I Strong support this global ban. Hide on Rosé ^t 08:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I may have not been around in a while, so I dont know how much weight my vote hold, but I'll vote regardless. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 09:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Operates a wiki where he as the owner allows attack page of Wikimedians. Arbcom-banned at NL-wiki since 2008 for harassment and legal threats. See Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Laster jegens de mentor. Natuur12 (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This user has caused enough problems of enough severity for a long time. I see no reason to believe the user would improve after this time. - Tournesol (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 10:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mainly due to him having a habit of impersonating an administrator just because he maintains a personal website that uses the software, which at least IMO there should be a global zero tolerance of. Especially since it's intentional and has been done across multiple projects. Although he also routinely makes up reason's people were blocked and then refuses to correct himself when called out for it. But there's zero reason someone who has zero problem pretending their an administrator to win disagreements should be allowed to participate in any Wikimedia project what-so-ever. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer ChatGPT over Guido den Broeder, even through ChatGPT can also troll and spread misinformation though. Canp (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have a strong disliking of global bans, but this user has done more than enough to deserve it. Even years ago, he showed an utter inability to collaborate on anything. He got blocked, then went away claiming the "right to vanish". Now for some reason, he seems to have reappeared - worse than ever. Very little is lost and much is gained if we get rid of him. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 13:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ruy (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not quite sure if the ban is urgently needed right now, but I also agree with Tournesol. --A.Savin (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support bullying should not be tolerated. Cheers, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A net negative for the community, without doubt.Karl Oblique (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same as VIGNERON. Esprit Fugace (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support the digital equivalent of doing his legs, Wikiwise. ——SerialNumber54129 18:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Coffins (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - reviewed the material at hand and come to the same conclusions as Natuur12 and Steinbach. --Daniuu (talk) 01:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Toxic user which should have been banned years ago. --Mirer (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This guy has been abusive to me since I cited c:COM:INUSE to disagree with some ill-considered deletion requests by him. As everyone else says, he's toxic, and it has also now come to my attention that he has tried to promote non-Wikimedia sites as supposed alternatives. I don't see how we benefit from keeping him around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support ~~Support~~ Has a many years long history of "contributing" to multiple WMF projects about essentially one subject only, i.e. Guido den Broeder, creating a lot of annoying noise on the way. Consistently demonstrated a fundamental incapability for collaboration or meaningful discussion. Allows his private wiki to be used for doxing Wikimedians. Global bans should be no cookies, but GdB rightfully deserves one. Wutsje (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having just noticed that GdB gave all of us the finger now makes me go for strong support. Wutsje (talk) 16:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support His old main account was arbcom blocked on nlwiki 15 years ago (block log) and globally locked by a steward 4 years ago (CentralAuth). Yet somehow the discussion is here again. Taketa (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, another sock to evade global lock. Lemonaka (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lock evasion and disruption during lock evasion. Per previous fine reasons. I'm all for fresh starts, but not to resume disruption. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, long overdue. strakhov (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, far too much time is wasted on this person. Wammes Waggel (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having not even heard of this user until the recent thread on Commons, I came in neutral, but reading their response above, I am convinced that they don't understand or refuse to acknowledge that they've been disruptive, and therefore have no intention of changing their behavior. 'Woe is me, I'm the victim and everyone else is the bully' doesn't hold much weight when four separate communities ban you for being disruptive. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's 5 now – idwiki banned them after I started this nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Note that Guido's claim above that he is not banned on any wikis is incorrect. He is community-banned on enwiki per this discussion, and subsequently also checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. – bradv🍁 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting old discussion, I must say. Anyway the "Paraduin" issue (which I didn't know until now) seems to have been solved, since the relevant page has been deleted (I just saw it still does exist on Sage). De Wikischim (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support--A1Cafel (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Initially, I thought that Guido made useful contributions on Commons. But as time past, it became apparent that their only purpose is promoting their own pet-projects with images hosted on Commons, and starting and contributing to dramas. So now, I don't think Guido's contributions would ever be useful to Wikimedia, and the answer to this RFC confirms that. --Yann (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support he had never been blocked on wikipedia.fr where i mainly contribuate but crosswiki abuse is the problem of every community. I see no reason ton give him a third chance when the second is not a success at all. To much noise. Intimidate someone is already innaceptable. Sockpupettry, personnal attacks...Time has come for a global ban.--Le chat perché (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support enough is enough. Multichill (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Drmies (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not believe that this user is capable of being a constructive contributor in our environment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "My contributions have always been constructive". Not the approach of self-criticism. Always thinks everything is done right. Even in the defense speech it becomes clear that things happened that are not even understood. For example, promoting your own invented “micronation”. Acts like a victim of the evil world, but is obviously the problem itself. Then she sock puppet lock on en-WP. And "Operates a wiki where he as the owner allows attack page of Wikimedians". People who only live the "I" and only look at themselves and only see themselves have problems in community projects. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann and Marcus Cyron. Abzeronow (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wutsje and Natuur12. Drummingman (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone else. All of whatever these problems that the user has done, and the fact that the wikis' communities tried to resolve those problems but failed to do so... I believe I have no choice but to support the global ban against them. – 64andtim ^(talk) 03:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The relevant account looks to be too much of a serial policy violator.-FusionSub (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some behaviors sadly never change (my more extensive reasoning is on the talk page). Ciell (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support He should be globally banned from this platform ever since he made legal threats and harrased other editors.--A09 (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bullying unacceptable. Vicarage (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of the oppose arguments are not very convincing. Harassments/threats is a serious issue. EPIC (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per EPIC TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 12:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. I've sadly had to experience Guido den Broeder downplaying cross-wiki harassment and blaming the victims. The noticeboard discussion is at [4]; a summary of my views on Guido den Broeder's behavior during the discussion is at [5]. ToBeFree (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteKrueBe (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "My contributions have always been constructive". No. --ɱ 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support allthough I don't know what other users the introduction refers to without naming them. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support That last post pushed me to a decision. He has clearly stated that he has no interest in working with us, and given the heaps of issues, which he completely refuses to take responsibility for, I see no reason not to sever the connection firmly from our side.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - XXBlackburnXx (talk) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Treating Wikimedia projects as one's own personal platform for promotion and harassing others is the textbook definition of being not here to build an encyclopedia. Prodraxis _(talk) 20:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Euku (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M/ (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jed (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overwhelming evidence. --Aalfons (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This should not be interpreted as a personal attack, but the user seems pretty arogant. This is not constructive. Also, in their response, point five: “the one page that I managed there”. What is meant by that? --ElBe ^{1 | 2 | WP} 09:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose These are not good enough reasons to exert power over local communities to permanently ban them from all Wikimedia Foundation projects, and this will be bad for the Wikimedia movement. Kk.urban (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, how is this bad for the Wikimedia movement? Most of their edits in recent times are just derailing discussions into dramas plus the several things I listed above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed a few of their edits on a few wikis. They often seem to be expressing criticism of the actions of users with advanced rights. The less this is tolerated, the less democratic the Wikimedia movement becomes. It continues to become more exclusionary and trends more towards the ideology of influential established users. This is an attempt to restrict actions of a user on other wikis which each have their own community norms, but will get dominated by the largest wikis, and in particular the English-speaking users, in global ban discussions and such because of sheer numbers. Kk.urban (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Expressing criticism" doesn't need to be done using personal attacks and ad hominem, which is what's happening here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kk.urban You seem to be confusing the concepts of democracy and anarchy. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice person with strong personal convictions. Nowakki 06:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He has a habit of supporting his side of disagreements by saying he's an administrator and then will refuse to clarify that he's talking about on his personal website when people ask him. Sorry, but it's not a "personal conviction" to actively and willfully impersonate being an admin and if nothing else deserves a global block, that clearly does. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In spite of this user's long history, I see no actual reason for a global ban as long as someone shows constructive behaviour on at least some of the projects (see his recent contributions to Wikibooks-nl). GdB already has a permanent block on several Wikipedia versions as well as here on Meta now, which should be enough to stop the most acute problems. Alternatively, the WP administrators or stewards here on Meta who feel harassed or something can simply make all further communication with GdB impossible by blocking GdB's mail address(es). De Wikischim (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is bullying a (former) user. Guido Den Broeder is no vandal, he stands up for his rights, but it looks like he's going to lose all his rights. Please don't global lock or block this person. - Richardkiwi (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Guido den Broeder were a vandal, stewards would have blocked him right away instead of having the community discuss his fate. He is "merely" a disruptive editor, which is why we give him this (slight) chance. I support the proposal since he got plenty of chances in the past and I don't see how on Earth Wikimedia could benefit from his contributions. If you disagree, I'm more than happy to hear why. But his not being a vandal is definitely insufficient. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 19:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Righty, but standing up for one's rights does not involve ad hominem and personal attacks. Global bans aren't used for vandals or spammers, but rather other problem users. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The edits the user made on Swedish Wikipedia [6] do not warrant a ban and thus he should not be banned on Swedish Wikipedia. We need to be able to tolarate different opinions about height of actresses and have discussion about copyright status of images. This user was met with unmotivated strong hostility, which might have provoked less than ideal responses. Rather placing the blame on the user, this was a weak moment for most people involved.--Orubblig (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. There was definitely socket puppeting going on as the user Lyrda [7] and The Jolly Bard [8] has the same singular focus on this one obscure russian child actor. This is an advanced trick that fooled me. This demonstrates that it is dangerous enough to ban this user on all wikis--Orubblig (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems both rather fat-fetched and a very serious accusation (pedophilia....?). However, if you really believe this is a big issue, GdB could alternatively be given a partial block for the article about this Russian actress, a block which would apply on all WP language versions, including the ones where GdB has no permanent block now. De Wikischim (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@De Wikischim I don't think anyone was accusing him of pedophilia. I think the most uncharitable interpretation of his editing on Kristina Pimenova's pages would be that of indirect self promotion. If she's a prominent famous actress then he looks better as a film producer for having made a movie with her. Immanuelle (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply reminds me a bit of this meme, @De Wikischim. Sorry for not being clear though. I also suspect that self promotion is the motivation behind the user's edits, but I am more concern about the w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. As demonstrated by my original comment here, it is hard to reason about the action of the user if the user uses multiple accounts that all are just within reasonable. The aggregate activity shows a different picture. It is highly unlikely that so many accounts focus on a single obscure actor.--Orubblig (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per De Wikischim. NotAGenious (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per De Wikischim. As a moderator on both nl.wiktionary and nl.wikimedia my experience with Guido den Broeder has been that clear but polite remarks have been sufficient. Apparently his behaviour is not the same on all projects. A global ban looks like overkill to me. --MarcoSwart (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per De Wikischimen MarcoSwart later verder Lidewij (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(translation)per De Wikischim and Marco Swart, I'll continue later. De Wikischim (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per De Wikischim, Kk.urban en MarcoSwart. If a ban is necessary to protect wikimedia, then things must have happened recently that make it necessary. However, people mainly report incidents that are said to have occurred between the ages of 5 and 17. What is being brought out now is unkindness and self-promotion. Multiple consultations are not always friendly here, so it must be so exceptionally unfriendly that one block can no longer be sufficient. I have not seen these examples. Self-promotion/or writing a page about yourself seems to have happened a long time ago (and is not exceptional), but there are others who created a page about him (2007). Having personal concerns on the user page is not unusual. Placing a link to Wikisage on a page about c:Commons:Alternative outlets does not seem block-worthy to me. I don't think he did this at an earlier date. All in all, one can only provide a block entry for events that occurred recently on commens. Lidewij (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per many of the above. I see he is block at Commons is because he wanted to be part of a project ‘without hate or porn’, which was enough to trigger the admins there. (Now that tells you all you need to know about the standards there). - SchroCat (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only part of the self-promotion story. They tried to promote Wikisage, a website that they admit to founding, which in essence is a clone of Wikipedia for "free thinkers" on c:Commons:Alternative outlets, when there were literally hundreds of better websites that could be listed. The Commons without hate or porn would have been very similar by the looks of their past behaviour. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
c:Special:Diff/840596476 is also unambiguously prototype advertising. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there also sanctions for dream visions? Lidewij (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's called prototype advertising. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, Reporting a dream vision on your user talk page is a prototype advertisement for that vision? I didn't know the word prototype advertising. But it is already on your list, where users can be blocked.- Wikisage. You write here a little higher up, that there were literally hundreds of better websites that could be listed on c:Commons:Alternative outlets list. I'm curious which ones you can name within the Dutch language area? Wikisage was set up for the Dutch language area. Lidewij (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of fandom wikis, Britannica, etc., better than a wiki that only has a mere 100 or so pages, and not on a list where Commons is supposed to showcase the finest alternatives. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SHB2000, your response makes it clear that you have an opinion and judgment about something you have not viewed. Not even after you could have read in several places that it is a mainly Dutch-language wiki site without advertising, with an appendix of an English part that has not 100 but 865 pages. Wikisage is set up as a freely editable Dutch-language Wiki, with more than 66,000 pages. Your examples of English-language sites (with advertising) are never an alternative and are off topic for Dutch-speaking users. The c:Commons:Alternative outlets list does not have only contain English-language sites, so there is no obstacle to what Guido added one day. To see this as a reason for a Global ban, is absurd. Lidewij (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to consider those edits as self-promotion, fine, but don't tell others that it isn't when it was agreed upon by the Commons community that it was self-promotion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 21:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a !vote here because I don't have enough knowledge about Guido's contributions to other projects, but on Commons at least, his edits are almost entirely inflaming drama on noticeboards and self-promotion. The three-month block should've just been a "NOTHERE" indef to begin with. The stated reasons for the quick extension to indef are IMO not as important as the reality of NOTHERE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of generalizations like this here on this RfC page, but still no answer anywhere to the question I put hereabove: whether ALL his edits are actually just self-promo, plagiarism etc. (brief "delicts"), or if at least a part could be seen as constructive (which is my own impression, having seen some of his edits on other local projects). I'll just wait for this answer to come and in the meantime stick to the view that it may be better after all to give GdB far-going restrictions wherever that's necessary (for example in his way of communicating with everyone with whom he's in conflict) and allow him to keep on editing for the other part, instead of dismissing him completely from the WMF site. De Wikischim (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user is neither a cross-wiki spammer nor vandal, and they did not cause a reputational damage to the WMF -- the global bans are usually relating to these kinds of users. If, as MarcoSwart said above, the user allows themself to behave variously in every specific wiki project, the issue of (indefinite) blocking should be discussed in each project where the user contributes. --Wolverène (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The misconduct threshold for a global ban does not seem reached. Global bans page gives reasons used in the past for a global ban:
Harassing or threatening contributors to the projects, on- or off-wiki.

Serious on-wiki fraud or identity theft that is not simple abuse of multiple accounts.

Inappropriate use of user rights with access to private information, such as CheckUser or Oversight.

Violations of the privacy policy or other official Wikimedia policies.

Persistent cross-wiki copyright violation.

None of the above apply, as far as I can see. Neither does anything similarly severe apply. Yes, there is misconduct, but not at this level of severity.

The RfC states sockpuppetry (abuse of multiple accounts) as one of the ban reasons, and yet, the relating item above explicitly disclaims this as severe enough: "that is not simple abuse of multiple accounts".
A global ban is a severe measure, and examples chosen by Global bans are severe accordingly. Similarly severe misconduct has not been identified/demonstrated. The misconduct can be addressed by local projects; they can even block Guido preemptively if they consider his substantiated misconduct severe enough. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first point very much applies to Guido with their excessive and nonstop incivility. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which individual cases of incivility in Commons meet the definition of "Harassing or threatening"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spreading misinformation about other users is very much a form of online harassment. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could link the relevant diffs. AP295 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SHB2000, I would like to see where Guido wrote disinformation about other users and thus spread a form of online harassment. Lidewij (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the Commons thread I linked (about SchroCat) they accuse:
Ikan Kekek of having an w:en:IDHT attitude (proved wrong by several other users)

Pretend they are an admin ("I'm an experienced admin (no, not on Commons, but elsewhere)."), which is problematic for reasons found on Adamant1's vote.

Attack Adamant1 with irrelevant past blocks.

Jeff G. brought up a past ANU thread. Guido passive aggressively responded back.

Also accused Ikan Kekek of c:Special:Diff/839667594 (which is an attempt to promote a falsified narrative)

In a different subthread:
I defended Ikan Kekek.

Claimed that all I can do is "can produce is personal attacks against me [Guido]".

Warned by Yann for that false and misconstrued comment.

Eventually blocked for 3 months.

This is just two of many threads and in recent times. I can give you more on Commons need it be. When they are proved wrong, they double down with personal attacks and argue endlessly (and rarely apologise – the recent Meta case was a rare exception). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also openly admitted that their behaviour will not change on d:Special:Diff/2055517913. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 04:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you back up each accusation with at least one link or a diff? Was the offending material deleted? I don't understand the problem. You don't have to link every last thing, just give us a representative sample with sufficient evidence to support a ban. The two diffs above don't seem to indicate a lifetime ban. AP295 (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that one sample not enough for you? I am not going to fork out every single link and every ANU discussion board for someone who is clearly uncivil as evident in their ban statement. It's going to take at least an hour to find every single case and I'd probably have missed some more. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incivilities aren't the only reason, though – x-wiki socking alone is grounds for a ban. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're talking about a global ban I feel it's entirely reasonable to expect organized, substantive evidence, even if it means an hour's work on your part. You should take it at least that seriously. AP295 (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If several people have been complaining that they have been personally attacked, as evidenced in #Support, you should take their word for it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Why should anyone be banned on mere whim? So far it doesn't seem like much more than an ordinary squabble between users, if that. The guy seems like an oddball, but I should think you have to do a bit better than that. AP295 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why wouldn't an ordinary, finite block suffice in this case? AP295 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because they have failed on nlwiki, enwiki, metawiki (before they were unbanned) and commons. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 06:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reapply as needed. AP295 (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are indefinite and there has been no sign by Guido that they will change (they openly stated they won't), so I don't see how anything but a global ban as the way forward. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 07:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconvinced. AP295 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I Mind you, I hold Commons in such low regard, given I've had an admin openly calling me an arsehole for which they received no castigation at all. Seems like Guido is partly a victim of double standards here. Talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut - this 'mob with pitchfork' approach is a poor way of dealing with an editor. - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were also blocked for a short period of time on Commons for incivility after it was discussed on an ANU thread. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only partly true, but at no point did I insult anyone. I certainly did not dive to the gutter to call anyone an arsehole, which an Admin there thought appropriate language. You may think it appropriate to insult other editors in that way, but I certainly don't, and I suspect most right-minded people wouldn't either.
As this discussion isn't about me, are there any more unconnected bits of history you want to bludgeon people with on this thread? Your name has appeared a lot on this page trying to get another editor banned. It's never a pleasant sight to see so much energy being expended by one person to do down another; maybe just let people express an opinion without chipping in quite so much? Just a piece of advice made in good faith. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, it is not true that the user demonstrated "ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse", if I understand the word "ongoing" correctly: the only recent alleged abuse from last, say, 3 years, is from Commons (Jan 2021-Dec 2023). --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Global bans, "Global bans are only considered when all the following criteria are met". If there's no ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse, this alone precludes a global ban. The policy is quite clear in this instance. AP295 (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the socking on nlwiki and enwiki before that? I don't get to gatekeep the definition of "ongoing", but 3 years of abuse counts as "ongoing". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 00:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that since all alleged abuse from the past three years is from commons, there is no ongoing cross wiki abuse. Since this is a necessary condition for issuing a global ban, you should probably withdraw the nomination unless you can cite some evidence. AP295 (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the ongoing abuse has been going for the past decade. This really reads like an attempt to gatekeep what "ongoing" means to someone who's spoken English their entire life as their native language. None of that, please. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 02:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Lemonaka said what needs to be said; I'm going to leave it there because I'm not going to argue at length with two users who defend incivility. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 02:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If something's no longer going on, then it's not ongoing. Does this make sense to you? AP295 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If something is no longer going on because they are blocked but continue to do it elsewhere, it is still ongoing. smh... --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But no longer cross-wiki. AP295 (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AP295 is now blocked. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now noticed this from Global bans: "A global ban request must only be accepted when a user presents a clear and current danger to all Wikimedia communities, a decision is backed by a broad and clear consensus that fairly represents the vast majority of Wikimedia projects, and careful consideration of concerns and possible consequences are evident in the decision." I see no "current danger to all Wikimedia communities", given that all reported problems in the last 3 years were from Commons only. However, the requirement of "current danger to all Wikimedia communities" is extremely stringent, very hard to meet, and therefore, I do not use this as an argument against the ban. The other requirement "fairly represents the vast majority of Wikimedia projects" is also extremely stringent, probably impossible to meet: unless the vast majority of Wikimedia projects were notified of this RfC in the first place, it is hard to see how a global ban RfC could possibly represent these projects. This suggests that the Global bans policy contains serious defects and has not passed a serious review. One is therefore advised to use the alleged official policy of Global bans as a mere guideline, and it would be advisable to mark it as such. The first and easiest step to fix the page is to remove each sentence that is inessential/can be done without, such as the quoted problematic sentence. Another step is to lock the page from editing to let only administrators edit the page and require that all changes to the policy are done via votes/change requests/requests for comment. This work is ideally to be done outside of the present request for comments/vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RfC alleges vague behavioral problems without going into any detail or demonstrating any real need for banning the user in question. I'm generally disinclined to support the use indefinite blocks/bans except in extreme cases. I get the sense indefinite blocks are often used thoughtlessly, to tie up loose ends rather than with any corrective intent. I hardly see what if any benefit there is in issuing a ban or indefinite block rather than, say, a two year block. Also, in my experience, appeals are often ignored or denied via some facile, boilerplate rejection message. At any rate, the only clear breach of conduct presented in the RfC is sockpuppetry. On Wiktionary, there's an active user who apparently made around six hundred sockpuppet accounts and they seem to be tolerated. I find it difficult to accept sockpuppetry alone as grounds to ban another user. If they really are a problem user, I'd like the RfC to include more specific details rather than just perfunctory accusations of trolling, incivility and NOTHERE. Consider that in the time it took to make this RfC and solicit comments, they could have simply been issued a (finite) block. What's the point of making such a production out of it? AP295 (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: Are you just going to blatantly ignore the countless incivility issues I've brought up? Read the Commons links in my statement above and you'll see what led me to creating this RfC. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to argue that a user should be banished from the entire platform then you should at least cite a few of the relevant diffs so we don't have to navigate a rat nest of links. You're the one who wants this guy thrown out, the onus is on you to make an argument to support this sanction. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not going to take your word for it because I've seen firsthand how users and sysops can trump up "behavioral issues" as pretext for a block. AP295 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree by and large with this. One of the main allegations the nominator puts forward here is incivility. However, this can be interpreted in almost all possible ways without any further specification, still apart from the fact that "being civil" is a very subjective ground to judge/condemn someone.
This is exactly my concern. It's very easy to become exasperated during a content dispute. In this context, an offhanded remark spoken out of frustration (or in response to provocation) is not grounds for sanction. Frustration and anger are part of the normal range of human emotion, yet so often editors act like a dispute or debate is some great threat to public order (often using metaphorical language like "WP:NOTBATTLE"), rather than a normal and in fact necessary part of the process. Dissent is frequently mischaracterized as "trolling" or "disruptive behavior". Users who express dissenting opinions are often treated as a nuisance, typically by malingering editors who demand the assumption good faith and civility without intent to reciprocate. I'm not saying that's the case here, but without evidence I'm not inclined to presume otherwise. Every edit and past version of any given page is easily accessed, searched and referenced. There's no reason not to directly cite the relevant evidence if we're talking about sanctioning someone at all, let alone issuing a global ban. AP295 (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally cited the evidence. Diffs aren't required if the evidence is direct quotes from the actual conversation. Your just nitpicking. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You cited one comment, and even then it's not clear to me that he was trying to impersonate an administrator, considering he apparently runs his own website which uses wiki software. I'm not saying you have to cite everything in the form of a diff, though they are preferable. Rather, this RfC is poorly-organized and lacking in substantive evidence in general. AP295 (talk) 08:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually two comments, but maybe it was how I worded things. Regardless, he's always been pretty open about the fact that runs Wikisage. So I don't really see why else he wouldn't have just said that's where he's an administrator unless he was trying to act like he's also one on a Wikimedia project. There's no legitimate reason what-so-ever to just say he meant on Wikisage if that's what he was talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I have a half-finished essay on the subject in which I made pretty much the same point [9]. It needs editing and a few other changes but the point is there.

About the issue of self-promotion: I suppose this is about the articles GdB apparently wrote about himself? All those pages seem to have been deleted now (that is, on the Wikipedia language versions). Furthermore, GdB is surely not the only "offender" in this regard. Of course it's not my intention here to condone self-promotion, but most of those who did similar things so in the past weren't sanctioned with an indefinite ban. De Wikischim (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but him repeatedly impersonating an administrator and then refusing to clarify what site he's an admin of when people ask him to has nothing to do with a content dispute and it isn't "dissent" either. No one thinks he should be globally blocked just for voicing an opinion about something in a content dispute. There wouldn't even be any content to get an a dispute with him in the first place because of his own admission he doesn't do any editing to begin with. At least on Commons all he does is stir up drama in on the administrator noticeboard while acting like he an administrator when he isn't one, and if that's not worthy of a global block I really don't know what would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs? I'm not calling you a liar or anything, but there are hardly any direct citations at all here. Assuming there's at least some merit to the accusation, we still need to see it in context. Otherwise we're only getting half the story. It's the bare minimum of due process. AP295 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: I don't have the time to find exact diffs right now and how he responded when called out about it is as important as the original comments, but if you read through the ANU complaint about him on Commons four or five comments down he says "I think that during all the years that I have been here, I have started only two or three discussions on a drama board. On my own wikis (I have 6) we don't have such boards...I can't even remember the last time that I blocked someone." Then when Jeff G. asked him what Wiki's they were he just said it wasn't relevant.

There's also another back and forth in User:SchroCat between me and him where he said "I'm an experienced admin (no, not on Commons, but elsewhere)." Then when I asked him what project he was an admin on he acted like I was cyberbullying him or some nonsense. There's other examples out there, but they aren't super recent and I don't have the time to look for them. Him doing it twice in the same week should be enough evidence that it's an issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to search high and low just to find the offending diffs, can you really say there's an "ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam"? This RfC is sloppy. AP295 (talk) 08:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AP295: I said that I didn't have time to research the diffs, because I'm busy in real life. Not that I would have to search high and low to find them. I'm sure you get the difference. Although I didn't provide exact quotes and links to the discussions. So I don't really see what your issue is except that It seems like your more concerned with arguing based on strawmen then actually dealing with the problem. There's plenty of evidence pointing to Guido den Broeder's incivility. Regardless of specific diffs or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every user's edit history is freely accessed and searched. If nobody can demonstrate the alleged ongoing, cross-wiki abuse by simply citing it directly, then why should one think any abuse has occurred? AP295 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the conversation seems to be the one where Guido says "I'm an experienced admin (no, not on Commons, but elsewhere). While I solved some cases that others wouldn't handle, you got yourself blocked here twice.", now archived at Commons: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 109. In one of the responses, Guido says "I have zero tolerance for cyberbullying"; this can be uncharitably interpreted as accusing Adamant1 of cyberbullying, or just bullying since "cyber-" is implied on the Internet. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --BrunoBoehmler (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose most wikis don't need protection from Guido den Broeder. no need for a global ban. ban local if it's necessary. --Knoerz (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ban all Hat- ehm Supporters. Greets. --Jack User (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack User: What is "Ban all Hat- ehm Supporters." supposed to mean? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 21:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably some attempted wordplay between "haters" and "supporters" with a demand to ban all who supported. But IMO better deny recognition of a user who is indefblocked on German WP after a years-long history of trolling and hatespeech. --A.Savin (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for the clarification, Alex :-) – I wasn't aware of the dewiki block. It just felt so demoralising seeing nonsense like "Ban all Hat- ehm [sic] Supporters [sic]" in an otherwise serious proposal. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably step back from this RfC for my own well-being, though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 12:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this comment, and by surveying their past contributions on Wikipedias this user has blocked (de, fr and it), I wonder whether I should seek for filling another global ban request against Jack User? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, they are also in just as much of a position for a global ban as Guido is, if not even more, for the reasons you and A.Savin mention. I would fully support it but won't start a request myself until this RfC is closed. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 08:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already requested a Global lock due to crosswiki harassment, but wouldn't say anything against a ban either. --A.Savin (talk) 09:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the request, but thank you for requesting the global lock! SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user was banned on de.wikipedia for extremely severe personal attacks, including but not limited to death wishes and open celebrations of other users' deaths. These are the kind of people who support Guido den Broeder, and whom Guido den Broeder supports. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 15:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I actually meant as hatespeech. --A.Savin (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly :-(. It's really strange to see so many people openly supporting incivility. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 21:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
”These are the kind of people who support Guido den Broeder”: that’s a disgusting broad brush personal attack on a large number of people and a rather shameful and untruthful claim.
The level of bludgeoning of oppose votes is terrible here and the small number of people attacking others (including with false accusations) on multiple occasions should just step away from this thread and stop with the incivility. You are acting in a shameful and disgraceful manner - enough that you would be blocked on most Wikis for your disgraceful behaviour here. Just stop. - SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that "many people openly supporting incivility". To the contrary, I oppose incivility and ask that it is adequately (not excessively) punished with blocks. From my experience, English-speaking wikis (Wikipedia, Wiktionary and Commons for certain) tolerate administrators vulgarly insulting others, creating an unpleasant atmosphere; this is not so in the Czech Wikipedia. The systemic incivility problems in English-speaking wikis cannot be solved by an exemplary and arguably excessive punishment of a single uncivil person, here Guido. They can be addressed via new codified and strictly enforced policy (e.g. zero tolerance of vulgar language for a start) rather than by wasting editor time and attention here on a single individual. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Bahnmoeller (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider this just-a-vote harmful, doesn't give anything useful and may lead me to consider this so-called user as someone's sock above, strike or not?! Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really unlikely to be a sock, if not next-to-impossible. They have 206,540 global edits and seem to be an established user on dewiki + wikidata. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 13:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least his known sock, which he used for years for the dirty work on "de" didn't vote above. --Mirer (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per De Wikischim. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that we ban users like this but not users like w:en:Wikipedia:User:Edgar181 just shows how shameful this website is.104.246.113.199 20:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Edgar181 is banned on enwiki and the account is globally locked, so this comment doesn't make sense. Kk.urban (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral I'm just not sure the abuse is severe enough to warrant a global ban. Sure, they have been an annoyance and sometimes very much so, but I feel like accepting this notion may open the door for discussion on other not so clear cut cases which I believe we would want to avoid. On the other hand, my experience really only goes about 3 years or so, and there might be things I haven't seen and therefore failed to take into equation. Estrellato (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I understand that promoting anything can be a problem, per en.wiki's WP:NOTPROMO, I have no issue with the fact that thing promoted is a Wikipedia clone, to the point where I'm not sure why the proposer brought it up. Other Wikis, from fanwikis to Conservipedia, have existed for a long time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This clone is used to dox Wikimedians. A user promoting a website used for doxing editors is problematic. Natuur12 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Natuur12, what examples do you have? Lidewij (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Giving links here would be doxing those Wikimedians too. Since you're quite active on the clone you surely are familiar with the examples. Wutsje (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doxing? That is relevant. But I just clicked and hit CTRL-F "dox" on both links that SHB2000 did supply, and the word doesn't appear once. Other bad acts are named, but not doxing.

Someone should say it: @Guido den Broeder:, the best way to not get globally banned is to show that there is at least one wiki, whether it's a Wikipedia in any language or Wikidata or Commons, in which you have done many many good edits and no more than a few bad edits, in which no one has even accused you of bullying or doxing, whether the accusation was true or not. For example, you only have about four edits on SEWP, so don't use SEWP. Maybe you deserve this ban and maybe you don't, but "the accused person didn't understand what type of response was expected" isn't a good reason by itself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darkfrog24, Wikipedians/former Wikipedians are described on Wikisage. No people are doxed on these pages. In 2015, Wikipedia blocked users created a Wikisage:Humor and Nonsense page where Wikipedia and Wikisage users were harassed. This page has been removed. Users who did not like having a page on Wikisage and emailed me have had these pages removed. Lidewij (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lidewij C J.: Why would there be articles on Wikisage for random Wikipedia users to begin with? It just seems like a weird thing to have even if it's not technically doxing. Although at least IMO it still is since I'm sure no one who had or has an article about them on Wikisage consented to their personal information being used outside of Wikipedia, which is one definition of doxing. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, on Wikipedia.nl there are dozens of pages about people who are or were also Wikipedia users. Sometimes these types of pages have been removed for various reasons. Pages that are deleted on Wikipedia are sometimes given a second life on Wikisage. On Wikisage you can write about yourself, refer to your own work and you can also include your own research in what you write. There is the option to write an essay. There are people who write a page about themselves on Wikisage. But also others that describe a person who is also a Wikipedia user. Facts with sources are the basis for these types of pages, just like on Wikipedia. You have an opinion and a belief, so your definition only applies to you. You cannot generalize with that. Lidewij (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) PS Guido has not written a page about a Wikipedia user.[reply]
@Lidewij C J.: You have an opinion and a belief, so your definition only applies to you. You cannot generalize with that. Per Doxing "Doxing is the act of publicly providing personally identifiable information about an individual or organization, usually via the Internet and without their consent. Historically, the term has been used to refer to both the aggregation of this information from public databases and social media websites (like Facebook)." That's essentially the definition of doxing that I'm going by. So how is exactly is that my "personal belief that only applies to me" or not what's happening in cases where users of Wikipedia didn't consent to articles being written about them on Wikisage? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I had to deal with this user was a decade ago, and even then disruption and abuse had been going on for at least half a decade. I got involved when I blocked the sock puppet The Jolly Bard at NL-wiki. A block backed up by checkuser evidence. Even now Guido is lying about this sock puppet, claiming that there was no evidence. And he's lying about a lot more. Some good edits don't outweigh more than 15 years of abusing our projects. Natuur12 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Did we take into account the rarity of film set photos? Here are the ones he uploaded Commons:Category:Photographs by Guido den Broeder. I don't know if Kristina Pimenova and The Russian Bride actually meet GNG, but if he were to make more films, I think at least photos he takes on set are an example of potential valuable contributions.

The rest of his uploaded commons photos are all things related to his own obscure micronation. I am unaware of whether he was uploading other disruptive content to commons @Yann: can you give more insight as the blocking admin on commons?

I do think it is worth noting that since he has his own website, he can presumably upload whatever he wants under Creative Commons license and if users think the images are useful they can put them on wikimedia commons themselves. Immanuelle (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please lock this account Lord Jelbyhat (talk · contribs), per en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Guido_den_Broeder/Archive, obvious lock evasion. Lemonaka (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC vs. vote: How does it work? Is this now a mere vote despite the "request for comments" name? Should not each vote contain a rationale, e.g. "per nominator", "per user So-and-so", etc? OTOH, for supports without a rationale, one can interpret it as "per nominator", and for opposes without a rationale, one can interpret it as "per all opposes above". Does one want to have these implicit non-rationales in a request for comment? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rationales are not required, no. Imagine that instead of just listing their usernames, SteKrueBe and BrunoBoehmler had both written, "I am sufficiently convinced that the proposed action should be taken/not taken"? Whether we assume that the proposal and comments already given are the rationale or whether the participant has some private reason that they choose not to share, the fact that they're convinced has weight on its own. You'll see that Estrellato in the "Neutral" section had a rationale to offer for consideration, but not one that E found convincing enough to list in the "Oppose" section. It's hard to explain exactly how an RfC isn't (or at least isn't entirely) a vote, but that's part of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the process called "Request for comments", then, rather than "Vote"? In the English Wikipedia, RfC's are very much not mere votes, by design, from what I have seen and understand. The above objection that the comment could be dummy anyway is inconclusive: not only could be comment-free posts dismissed (and indented to make the dismissal clear) but also posts with dummy comments could be dismissed. And the onus of a rationale is not heavy: one only has to find a location where a rationale is located and point to that location in the comment (e.g. using the form "per X"). I do not see these comment-free posts in the English Wikipedia RfCs, even in RfCs on user rights (or am I wrong?), so I wonder why Meta adopts a different standard. Surely objections to requiring rationales would also be valid for the English Wikipedia? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the Category:Successful global ban requests. So it seems to be a part of the policy here to use this "RfC" page to impose global bans as well. Anywyay, I do agree this isn't very logical. I think it would be preferable to have a separate page "[[Request for a global ban/ (name of the use to be banned)]]" or something like that, analogical to the user block request pages on the local WMF projects, and use "RfC" for other issues. Anyway this is all beside the actual point here for now. De Wikischim (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are behaving terribly, disruptively and trying to defend for trolls, again, just the same as in planespotterA320 case.
Banning someone globally is hard, these requests most come from depressed users, block/lock requests refused by locals and Wikimedia foundation. There's a bug in global govermence, we are behaving too kind for these users should be banned, for example, they need to be blocked indefinitely on at least two projects and they will have a number of users who try to defend them against accusation. RFC for global ban usually disrupted by these defenses. And so on. On last case, you even said "support vote without reason should not be counted". Though I know this is not a vote, but some reasons for ban are just too obvious and valid, we don't need to talk about that again and again.
Whilst, we are making a terrible place for these requesters, for example, lots of global ban speedy close for not noticing all the projects defendant active, even a case has been started, lots got no consensus. Requesters are subjected to possible life-long harassment from the user should be banned and criticize from some others. Seemingly they are the cold-hearted, have an axe to grind or cruel animals.
Sorry for writing such, deeply sorry for my words. Lemonaka (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His question seems perfectly reasonable to me. Isn't everyone entitled to at least bare-minimum due process? Most of the supporting comments add nothing, neither citing evidence nor policy. Isn't the object of this RfC to determine whether the accused qualifies for a global ban according to policy? At the very least, there should be an organized list or table of diffs and other substantive material that demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse, which is a necessary condition for issuing a global ban. SHB2000 and others assert this but have furnished very few supporting diffs. Isn't it the height of bad manners to solicit someone's comments and then accuse them of bad behavior when they oblige you? In response to my point that both ongoing and cross-wiki are necessary conditions according to Global bans, and agreeing with Dan that the past three years is a very reasonable (and frankly quite generous) time-frame for ongoing cross-wiki abuse, SHB2000 replied "This really reads like an attempt to gatekeep what "ongoing" means to someone who's spoken English their entire life as their native language." (whatever the hell that means), and then "I'm going to leave it there because I'm not going to argue at length with two users who defend incivility." Does this whole RfC not descend into farce when basic questions of due-process, policy and evidence are considered "bad behavior"? AP295 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if users can be globally banned just by majority vote in an RfC, then let the ban policy say so. AP295 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this whole RfC not descend into farce when basic questions of due-process, policy and evidence are considered "bad behavior"? The bad behavior is refusing to listen to what other people are telling you while nitpicking over minor, inconsequential details that don't matter. One example being your dismissal of my evidence that Guido den Broeder was impersonating an administrator just because I didn't link to diffs when I provided exact quotes from both sides of the conversation. Your clearly just here to do nothing more but try and derail this over nitpicky non-issues, or at least that's the impression I get from your behavior. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fantastic conclusion, considering that people who make accusations are usually asked to provide evidence to back them up. An unsourced quote is a claim that must be backed up by evidence, not evidence in and of itself. I haven't dismissed the one conversation you linked, but it does not suffice by itself to support a global ban. Dan Polansky points out that all of the recent alleged abuse has occurred on commons. Is that true? If so, then a global ban may not be issued per Global ban, "Global bans are only considered when all the following criteria are met: 1. The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam." Besides, from the context it seems plausible that he could have been referring to the website he apparently operates and which uses wiki software. AP295 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I provided links to the conversations and one of them is one the main ANU page. So in way was anything I said "unsourced." I literally gave you direct quotes with links to the conversations and told you where in them he made the comments. Clearly nothing is going to satisfy you though. And just an FYI about that. Everyone in the conversation on Commons knew he was the maintainer of Wikisage and he's always been open about it in other situations. So there's no reason he wouldn't have just said that's what he meant from the start or at least when people asked him to clarify things. The only reason he wouldn't though is if he was trying to make it look like he's also an administrator on a Wikimedia project. Otherwise he would have just said he was talking about Wikisage instead of deflecting and accusing me of cyberbullying.
You've provided one link as far as I can see, and you only did that because I asked. Not exactly wanton abuse, nor sufficient according to policy, nor something that only a global ban can solve. Also, anyone can check anyone else's global account information from their contributions page, so the number casualties here is precisely nil. AP295 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AP295, if you refuse to accept pieces of evidence, that's your problem, not Adamant1's. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 09:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge the evidence that has been posted. According to site policy he's still not eligible for a global ban. AP295 (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to disregard the definition of "ongoing", that's also your problem. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to your question, I only edit on Commons. So I can't speak for his behavior on other projects but it would kind of be a given that his most recent behavior would be on Commons if he's banned from every other project that he regularly participates in. That doesn't mean there isn't an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse though. It's clearly is. Since again, he was blocked from other projects for bad behavior. Otherwise you'd have to argue someone can't be globally banned if they are blocked from any Wikipedia projects because it's not an " ongoing pattern" at that point. Which you'd have agree would be totally ridiculous. Repeatedly being banned from multiple projects (some multiple times BTW) is clearly "an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse" regardless though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? If all his alleged abuse from the last three years (which seems only weakly substantiated in the first place) is on commons then this does not comprise abuse that is both ongoing and occurring across multiple wikis. He has been blocked on Commons. As someone uninvolved with the incidents and unfamiliar with the man in question, I do not see the problem. It seems like a global ban at this point would be a purely retributive sanction and in violation of site policy. I suppose I should mention that I can only read his English contributions, but he's been blocked from nl.wikipedia since 2017. AP295 (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than ongoing cross-wiki abuse, the event motivating this RfC appears to have been a petty dispute over some 3kB SVG file, which was then escalated by sheer cajolery, flopping and mudslinging to a large discussion about global bans. The accusing parties are no less responsible than the accused and the one-sidedness of this dispute seems more a reflection of the accuser's status rather than disproportionately abusive behavior on part of the accused. The few instances of "abuse" that I've seen are more than matched by the accuser themselves here in this RfC, which seems purely retributive since the accused has already been issued an indefinite block on commons. The accusers show significant contempt for due process and scrutiny. The user in question is not eligible for a global ban according to site policy, per my comments and Dan's comments above. AP295 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you and Dan nitpick the definition of "ongoing" to something that is highly dubious does not make it ineligible, as you seem to think. I also note you're blocked for "trolling" on en.wikt and am suspicious that you are also trolling this RfC, but that is a tangent and doesn't affect anything – it does affect how I view you as a person when responding, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not nitpicking anything about the definition of the word. Use the definition here if you want [10]. If all his alleged abuse in the past three years has occured on a single wiki, there is no ongoing cross wiki abuse. Global bans is very clear about this. "Global bans are only considered when all the following criteria are met The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. [...]". AP295 (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage you seem to purposefully be ignoring what I said above. Repeating yourself over is not going to help your case. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Minorax or @Billinghurst, please notice trolling behaviour from AP295 during this RFC. Thanks. Lemonaka (talk) 11:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly tempted to report it on WM:RFH (blocks on en.wp and en.wikt for similar reasons), but that would be a conflict of interest since I started this RfC. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 11:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make this facile accusation against dissenting users. You requested comments, I obliged. Bald-faced thuggery like this isn't going to cover for the vacuity of your argument. Perhaps you should have called it an RfAC, a request for assenting comments. We have directly refuted their eligibility for a global ban. The policy is quite specific. If nobody can demonstrate an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse then I can only conclude they shouldn't be globally banned. You complain about Guido's alleged incivility without showing civility to others, you complain they haven't shown you good faith, but then you accuse others of trolling when they respond to your own RfC candidly. Right on this page you've done most of the things you accuse Guido of doing. I've never even been here. I came because you made a colloquium topic at Wikiversity (my "home" wiki) asking us to comment, and you give me grief in return for my efforts. You've shown abject contempt for decency and objectivity, going from wheedling to coercion when your argument is subject to actual scrutiny and shown to be incorrect. AP295 (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000 done. Lemonaka (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers :-). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 18:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just for the record I'll also respond to Global ban for Guido den Broeder's response to me saying he was impersonating an administrator, which is just deflection and patently false. For one, nowhere have I said anywhere that he was 'impersonating an administrator' because he asked me to stop being rude in deletion requests. I said he was impersonating an admin because he literally said he was one and then wouldn't clarify what site he was talking about when multiple people asked him to. I'm sure people like AP295 will just dismiss the blatant, clear dishonesty as just "dissenting opinions" or whatever though lmao. And BTW, that's exactly the kind of response someone who gets caught trying to impersonate an administrator would write to. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pity that the subject of this being a mere vote vs. an actual request for comments was derailed above by posts irrelevant to the subject. It seems to be a perfectly valid subject deserving a serious consideration. It cuts both against the support posts and the oppose posts. As for the opposers, votes that I would say are clearly inadequately justified/having a grossly deficient rationale include Nowakki, Richardkiwi, BrunoBoehmler, Jack User and Bahnmoeller. One should consider that one oppose discarded has a greater effect on the result than one support discarded. If it is a mere numerical vote, it should be clarified what the pass threshold is. Is it 2/3 of supports to supports + opposes? Something else? Does each vote count no matter how objectionable, that is, e.g. Jack User? Let me add that other projects have no difficulty naming their votes as "Votes" rather than "Request for comment", per Wikidata:Q4657677, e.g. the English Wiktionary, the Portuguese Wikipedia and the Czech Wikipedia. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]