User talk:Roadcreature: Difference between revisions

Thanks for the complement. I have some other stuff going on in my life right now and don't know how much time I can give to Wikipedia, but I will monitor my watchlist as best I can. Ward20 (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is really nothing left for me to do here. Wikipedia is dead, I won't waste any more energy on it. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Guido, even if your hands are tied to the point where you aren't even allowed to discuss ME/CFS on your own talkpage. - Tekaphor (TALK) 11:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tek, I hope you saw the news.[1] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions

As various users are currently suggesting that my account should be blocked because of my contributions, here is a complete overview for easy reference.

Basic income in the Netherlands Removed 'welfare' that was incorrectly put forward as an example, improved layout and corrected a link description [2][3][4]
Chess World Cup Added a mention of the earlier GMA Grand prix. [5]
Geoengineering Reworded the lead where there was some confusion between definition and application [6][7]
Global Cooling Changed an anon's addition of 'today' (the infamous moving target) into 'beginning of the 21st century' in accordance with source and info at Global Warming [8]
Owen's Defense Added mention of a common pitfall in this opening, with game and diagram. [9]

Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion

I've started a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Guido den Broeder. Fram (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to the terms of your ban.

Per CHL, you are under a "Topic ban on CFS topics on all articles and talk pages for one year."

This includes your talk page. You are not permitted to discuss CFS topics, which obviously includes ME. I choose at this time not to report this further, but you are not permitted to discuss this topic further. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hipocrite for bringing this back here from AN/I.

However, this is not an article talk page, nor do I see why the ban would include the topic of ME, let alone obviously. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned from discussing anything related to CFS/ME on all article and talk pages, including your talk page. This is not up for debate, at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked Cool Hand Luke for clarification. His statement mentioned only CFS, not ME which is a different topic. Whether the topic ban includes non-article talk pages is unclear. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No clarification is required. [10] is clear (all articles and talk pages), as is Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS ~ ME) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an arbitrator, nor are you an expert on either topic. Note that the ArbCom points to my good behaviour on nl:Wikibooks, where I contributed to the very topic of ME. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite correct. But I'm an admin. In an amusing catch-22, the terms of the unblock would appear to even constrain you from discussing whether CFS ~ ME William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not discussing it. And as you have long overstayed your welcome, I suggest that you withdraw. Cool Hand Luke is perfectly capable of answering my question, so there is no need for a full dozen other users to jump in. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, in light of the concerns you raised about my participation in your case, I have recused myself from any future deliberations about your participation on Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm not comfortable interpreting the terms of your unblock. I've notified the other arbitrators about this dispute, and you should be hearing from the Committee. Cool Hand Luke 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Luke, that is wise and fair. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, you need to drop CFS and ME now. Completely. Your unblock is strictly dependent on your capacity to stay away from this topic entirely, and unless you do so we will have little choice but to reblock you. — Coren ^(talk) 15:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that an extension of the topic ban. Again, you have not provided a reason for this decision. Obviously you (plural) have the power to set any restriction that you want, but you should realize that there are consequences to making arbitrary, partial decisions. Trust in you has diminished further, and that will echo far beyond my personal involvement. Wikipedia will be known even more clearly for purposely spreading false medical information, and for giving malicious users a free pass to harass good-faith contributors.

I will check back on you a year from now. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of topic ban

From: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

Topic ban - The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so.

User talk pages, noticeboards etc. are not related to a topic, and are therefore exempt from topic bans. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man.

Guess you heard about Malcolm? A sad and unfortunate result of an imperfect system. See ya around. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. It is Wikipedia's loss, that's for sure. Kind regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I've blocked you a week for violating your unban restrictions for edit warring onGlobal warming. Your unban restrictions included 1RR, this showed you the terms. Arbcom will be considering your unban. Also see User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions and Wikipedia:ANI#What_do_you_think.3F. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit overview below. I have not broken 1RR. It was other editors that restored my edits. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edits of the day

Since I am again accused of editwarring, here is once more a full overview of my edits.

Global warming replaced ambiguous text ('last century') with unambiguous text [11] - immediately reverted by William M. Connolley ("stop fiddling")
Global warming attempted to collaborate by providing exact period from source [12], English improved by another user - both of us together immediately reverted by William M. Connolley ("stop fiddling")
Global warming replaced ambiguous text ('past century') with accurate periode from source [13] - immediately reverted, restored by another user, then reverted again by William M. Connolley ("stop pratting around")
Geoengineering restored previous edits (see former list of edits) that got deleted by mistake some days ago [14] - immediately reverted by William M. Connolley ("oh stop it")

I don't know, but I get the impression that someone doesn't want to let me edit at all, regardless of merit or topic, and of who else gets hurt in the process. Note that William M. Connolley is the admin who banned me after I asked him not to editwar (with another editor, not me) over spelling. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel betrayed by you

I argued that you should be unblocked so that you could substantively contribute to Wikipedia. You said that you wanted to contribute. You said that you would not try to circumvent restrictions imposed. You said that you would work in different areas than the users who had issues with you. It seems that everything you told me was a lie.

Instead, you've feigned ignorance on commonplace terms like "last century" in order to make sub-trivial edits on Global Warming for the purpose of annoying WMC.

I don't care that you've accused me of prejudice, ignorance, arbidiocy, and so forth. But I'm honestly disappointed with how this has turned out. Some of my colleagues thought it was a waste of time to give you another chance. I had hoped that they were wrong. Cool Hand Luke 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your continuous attempts at defamation, including your post above, I couldn't care less how you feel. I have done nothing wrong, as I have done nothing wrong in the past. But you, and others, assumed bad faith behind every word I said, and built a house of cards on that. All you do is lie, lie, lie. You dug your own grave, it has nothing to do with me. I could have helped Wikipedia get back on its feet, was willing to make the effort. Now, your story is over. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 * [[Geoengineering]] restored previous edits (see former list of edits) that got deleted by mistake some days ago [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geoengineering&diff=prev&oldid=293592839] - immediately reverted by [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] (''"oh stop it"'')
 I don't know, but I get the impression that someone doesn't want to let me edit at all, regardless of merit or topic, and of who else gets hurt in the process. Note that [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] is the admin who banned me after I asked him not to editwar (with another editor, not me) over spelling. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 22:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+== I feel betrayed by you ==
+I argued that you should be unblocked so that you could substantively contribute to Wikipedia. You said that you wanted to contribute. You said that you would not try to circumvent restrictions imposed. You said that you would work in different areas than the users who had issues with you.  It seems that everything you told me was a lie.
+Instead, you've feigned ignorance on commonplace terms like "last century" in order to make sub-trivial edits on Global Warming for the purpose of annoying WMC.
+I don't care that you've accused me of prejudice, ignorance, arbidiocy, and so forth. But I'm honestly disappointed with how this has turned out. Some of my colleagues thought it was a waste of time to give you another chance. I had hoped that they were wrong. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand]] ''[[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|Luke]]'' 22:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+<div style="border:1px solid black; background:#99EEFF; padding:2px;">
+In view of your continuous attempts at defamation, including your post above, I couldn't care less how you feel. I have done nothing wrong, as I have done nothing wrong in the past. But you, and others, assumed bad faith behind every word I said, and built a house of cards on that. All you do is lie, lie, lie. You dug your own grave, it has nothing to do with me. I could have helped Wikipedia get back on its feet, was willing to make the effort. Now, your story is over. [[User:Guido den Broeder|Guido den Broeder]] ([[User_talk:Guido_den_Broeder|talk]], [[User:Guido_den_Broeder/Visit|visit]]) 23:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
+</div>