Talk:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder

Comments from Ciell

I was not going to vote or get involved, but Guido: you are telling so many wrongs in your response, that as one of the locally blocking admins for nl.wikipedia back in 2007 and 2008 I don't want to stay silent here.

• 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.
  • Your current account is blocked on nl.wikipedia since 2017. The former account was blocked for the first time in June 2007 because of abuse of sock puppets. Your promised to be better, but several blocks and ArbCom interventions followed. 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 8th being the indefinite one. ArbCom decided for an indefinite block after the final straw of a legal threat.
  • The desysop you refer to in 2018 had nothing to do with your case: also, the former admin is not permabanned.
• 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.
  • The December 2006 version of the Dutch Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not mentions Een platform om jezelf te presenteren ("A platform to promote yourself") and Een goede vuistregel is: schrijf geen artikel over jezelf. ("Good rule of thumb: don't write about yourself"). Your first edit is from Feb 2007. Interesting enough, you used the same arguments in the ArbCom case in 2007 (under point 2), where the ArbCom also mentions the rule has been around since 2004, and your article has been deleted for a total of 4 times because of problems with notability.
• 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.
  • I don't think it was because of Wikisage our projects dropped the GNU license, but maybe I am wrong there.
  • If by 'we' you mean Wikisage, and the "local WMF chapter" is Wikimedia Netherlands that your project has good relationships with: I sincerely doubt that. 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.

Guido, you have had your chances, and you blew them. For me this is not personal, and I'm sure you are a decent person IRL. But your online behavior adds nothing but stress and disturbance to our projects. Ciell (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)