Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

Amber tournament discussion
I have neither the time nor energy to find out what Guido den Broeder has done in the English Wikipedia to evaluate the need for this request for comment. Anyhow, I have a clear opinion on the Amber tournament page. Guide den Broeder was adding useful information to the article, which was removed by the Dutch wikipedians due to COI. I reinserted the information (It was requested by Guido den Broeder though). Then it was removed again without reason by the Dutch wikipedians and reinserted in another form by an administrator of the English Wikipedia, User:Carcharoth. --Jisis (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I'm concerned, Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament is a dispute that was handled and resolved. It is misleading to list it here as an example of an attempt to resolve the dispute. I propose it should be removed, or marked as resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Treasurer?
It has been asserted that GDB was the treasurer of VBI. I can't find a diff, does anyone know where it is, or if it occurred off-wiki? WLU (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not needed, I can confirm that I am. It's mentioned on my user page as well as on the VBI website.. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Userful link

 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive408


 * COI/N
 * 

Admins who have pointed out the problems with GDB's COI edits:


 * User:Aecis
 * User:Scarian
 * EdJohnston
 * Davidruben
 * Mangojuice (though Mangojuice's focus is primarily on the 3rr, there is yet another caution towards referencing one's own work

As much as being an administrator is not a big deal, they still represent highly trusted members of the community for their ability to interpret policy, implement solutions and negotiate tricky situations. Perhaps they have a point. WLU (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And this has all been reviewed already with the result that no action is warranted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You forgot admin User:Jossi, who pointed out that Guido should exercise caution, and "most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others". Since you did engage in an edit war to keep your website in an article (as an external link, not as a reference) after receiving this advice (and that of many others), circumstances have changed, and at least a few people do find it necessary to take a closer look. Fram (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * GDB - One admin saying that the issue hasn't been reviewed enough, then giving you a warning about your conduct does not give you license to ignore the statements made by four other administrators. Is there a threshold of contributors that need to comment before you will consider there may be a problem?  At what point will numerous, separate parties coming to the same conclusions about your editing will it be sufficient?  Picking the single admin who had an opinion that there was a problem after four others said there was seems to violate the spirit of WP:PARENT more than a little and is yet another example of wikilawyering in my opinion.  COIN clearly came down that there was a problem yet you took Jossi's statement to be a blanket endorsement of your edits, despite Jossi the warning consecutively to exercise caution, not edit war and not be disruptive.  You have taken none of this advice.
 * Fram - I didn't forget about Jossi, but since he didn't explicitly endorse the topic ban, I didn't count him as a fifth and I don't want to put words in his mouth. WLU (talk) 19:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fram, please make sure that your citations are accurate. Copying fully:
 * I fail to see a level of disruption that would warrant a ban. The user should be advised to exercise caution, and most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others. After all, it should be very easy to check the article and see if there is material that should not included, or vice-versa, COI, or not COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My citation was not complete (obviously, the part in quotes didn't even form a complete sentence), but I fail to see how it was not accurate. This is the kind of wikilawyering I object to: you reply to my comment not by making any substantial comments, but by accusing me of something, without making it even clear how you would support that accusation. You just repeat the quote in full, without indicating how it changes the meaning of the part I quoted, or why it would not be relevant to your behaviour.Fram (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever. The neutral reader will see it for what it is. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not entirely sure that was the conclusion - WP:COI/N had probably a consensus to block. Subsequent lesser action of a ban had you seeking RARB which was rejected with suggestion seek AN/I and further discussion with yourself. Well AN/I indeed failed reach support for that specific ban, but trying to discuss with you peoples' concerns seems (or at least should be) a constructive process. WP:COI/N in its opening states:
 * "The COI guideline does not require editors with conflicts of interest to avoid editing altogether. An editor who has disclosed a conflict is complying with the guideline when they discuss proposed changes on a talk page, or make non-controversial edits in mainspace consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines"
 * So GDB is allowed to make edits or suggestions on talk pages, and non-controversial edits in mainspace. But WP:COI does not therefore allow controversial edits in main space - and the perspective is with other wikipedia editors, not the editor in question. Failure to agree to this, which seems at heart of this RfC, seems IMHO (in my humble opinion) grounds to consider an editor as disruptive to other editors and if coaching, advice and warnings are totally disregarded then "COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked" (from WP:COI). Also to be considered is COI. David Ruben Talk 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, show me where I made a controversial COI edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That'd be any mainspace edit where you a) cited yourself b) removed a template placed on the page because of your actions or c) created a page for an organization you are a significant member of. This is an example of the latter.  And again, why is it OK to ignore four admins, but listen to the one that in some way could be stretched to support your actions?  Particularly when the admin cautioned you to be "squeaky clean" in your edits.  That would mean discussing, not reverting, and allowing uninvolved editors to review your suggestions rather than making them yourself.  WLU (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * here is another, and when your deletion of the template was replaced, you removed again. Here is one where you added VBI to the basic income page after Fram removed it.  And here you replaced it, along with a variety of other links after I removed it.  Here is a lovely thanks for someone trying to mediate.  Here you add no less than four of your own books.  I believe in the past you have said you are also the publisher of these books?


 * Incidentally, is this a fifth administrator who thought you were self-promoting? WLU (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversial pertains to the content, for instance if another user claims that the text (including references, links and templates) becomes non-neutral. The mere fact that e.g. a reference is to a self-publication does not make the edit controversial. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, adding an unreliable source is a source issue. Adding NPOV information is a NPOV problem.  Adding information and sources that you are involved in is a COI problem and is what we're discussing.  Particularly when your peers judge that the additions help the website being added, not wikipedia - which numerous admins and non-admin editors have said.  It is not difficult to use the venues presented to you - third party review of contributions, use of templates to get others' attention.  And it is only in regards to sources that you add or pages you create or edit that you have a COI in.  You are 100% free to edit American Idol or Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council or Freemasonry.  But not VBI or MCS Verenginging, or adding your own publications (possibly self-published sources) to those pages.  Again, demonstrate your expertise through citation of other sources, not by adding your own work - let others add your work if there is merit.  I see this as another case where you are fundamentally mis-understanding the spirit of the policy you are in conflict with or disputing - this happened at the COIN page, and again on my talk page.
 * And what again, is your reason for leaving that message on User:Black Kite's talk page? I can ask him if you'd like.
 * Concerning this statement, where did you ask for other's input? And the link was removed not because of the language content, but because of the conflict of interest concern.  Which is totally different from an EL concern.  I trimmed out the EL section on basic income later, which you reverted, and I removed all the non-language sources.  But you reverted that anyway.  WLU (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will continue to follow the guideline, rather than your preferences. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but what about the preferences and interpretations of the guidelines of the 8-10 other editors who have issues? And who did you ask for input on what talk page (regards your recent comment on jossi's talk page here)?  You still haven't answered the question and your failure of such a basic comment looks like stonewalling or filibustering to me.  Please, what venue did you ask?  Previous times when I have asked for clarification you have pointed to talk pages that didn't appear to support your points.  Specifically I'm talking about this section of the VBI talk page, where you refer to this section.  No-one seems to point you to arbitration. Am I missing something?  WLU (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Thank you, I take this to mean that you have read and understood my comments, and have no policy, guideline or rational way of replying to my comments. I shall ask Black Kite about his role in this in case it is germane. WLU (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Types of unemployment
A self-reference by GDB on Types of unemployment was removed today by another editor, with GDB then adding a Copyvio tag to the article. I would understand a challange of a fact tag to othewise go find a source for the information (and to which an independant editor might choose that of GDB as being the most appropriate), but I fail to understand the "Violation of attribution rights after removal of source" statement made. Material was presumably added under GDFL and so copyright restrictions lifted by GDB as the materials author? But perhaps I am misunderstanding a complex copyright/GDFL/adding ones own previosuly copyright material/citing-to-verify/citation-gets-removed situation...

However the material and link was added back in October 2007 with a very clear forthright edit summary alerting editors to the potential for COI, for which GDB is to be commended in approach taken at that time. That said, I think it is problematic to add a self-reference to a non-English source as it is particularly difficult for other editors in English Wikipedia to verify - perhaps request at the Dutch Wikiproject to assess the link proposed on a talk page rather than the article might have been helpful - this does seems to come back to issues of editing in potential COI... (strike out misunderstanding as below) Anyway see discussion at Talk:Types of unemployment. David Ruben Talk 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an English source. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok if you so say - but I guessed a PhD thesis would have been written in an official language of the country, ie Dutch in the Netherlands :-) Issue re language therefore struck-out above. David Ruben Talk 20:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of a situation where a thesis of any type would be appropriate to cite. It's appropriate to cite a journal article based on a thesis, but no the thesis itself.  WLU (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Calling it ridiculous doesn't address my points, nor does it turn the thesis into a reliable source. Policies and guidelines exist to produce a reliable encyclopedia, and can not be dismissed because you really really want something.  Claiming the page is no longer on your watchlist demonstrates your unwillingness to engage in the process.  Much like you've dismissed every possible claim that you might have a conflict of interest that somehow affects your objectivity.  WP:COI exist s for a reason - because the community has found, and rightly so, that individuals who have a conflict of interest put their desires before that of the encyclopedia.  You may be wrong, your interpretation may be out of keeping with the extant policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia.  Accept it.  Or leave.  WLU (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I've had it with your personal attacks and trolling. Grow up, do something useful with your life, etc. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As you like, but you have again failed to address my concerns over the reliability of the source, your failure to acknowledge problems with your understanding of policy, objections to your edits by a variety of editors, or engage with various dispute resolution and other processes to resolve issues with your conduct. You may be frustrated, but if you simply can not address my points, then at least acknowledge it rather than dismissing the issues I raise as if they were of no consequence.  WLU (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have no points that need addressing. I will therefore leave them for what they are and continue following the guidelines. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)So can I consider the issue of a thesis being a reliable source settled? You don't think that a thesis is a reliable source unless published in a journal or academic publisher? And you also agree that you should not cite your own work directly, but rather work through a proxy? And what are your thoughts on the input of the 8-10 other editors who also disagree with your interpretation? I didn't start this RFC, I am not the sole contributor. What is your opinion of their opinions? Are they spurious as well? Do you believe that all these other commentators, despite their years of experience, thousands of edits, and status as admins - people given their extra tools because they have demonstrated their ability to build the encyclopedia and make decisions based on their understanding of policy? WLU (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That talk page quite unacceptable: this threat to just tramp through consensus and this breach of AGF for what was a serious discussion that a thesis whether self-bound or self-published is not a WP:RS. I've added to advice not to carry out threat to reinstate against consensus and posted a level-3 agf warning direct to GBD. The COI/N, RFARB, RfC, mainspace-talk and user-talk trying to explain that COI is for others to assess, is getting very drawn out. Unless some positive changes from GBD, then further editing against consensus or AGF issues should I think be taken to AN/I. David Ruben Talk 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not be dragged into one procedure after another. If you are intent on continuing these actions after every single edit I make until you finally get one favourable review: skip it, don't waste my time, I will not play your game. Since none of the certifying users have tried to resolve this dispute (other than by suggesting punishment or simply repeating that I am wrong), I now consider this procedure ended. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edits are being monitored because of a number of other editors who find them problematic and have suggested numerous ways of reducing the COI and sourcing issues that you are running into. These are all attempts to resolve the dispute, most of which are very simple and effective.  Your reply has been, as above, to singlehandedly dismiss them.  This isn't about punishment, it's about how you use wikipedia, interpret its policies and guidelines, and interact with other editors.
 * WP:BATTLE is something that might be added to the applicable policies and guidelines, and WP:SPIDER. Simple, simple solutions are being presented, and have been presented at every single venue this has arised in, and all were rejected.  Speaking of rejection, this and this are of concern.  WP:DR might be added to the applicable P&G - if DR has been started but the subject of the DR refuses to acknowledge that any other editor has a point, that's hardly a good faith effort to enter the process.  Etiquette, WP:GAME, WP:POINT and WP:CONSENSUS are also P&G that I think apply.  Ultimately, WP:WQ and WP:CIVIL are the overarching concerns for me right now.  WLU (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just talk to him in English, as you did in the first part of your post, instead of using an alphabet soup and waving policies and guidelines around, as you did in the last part of your post? What about a bit of common sense? Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter portion of my post is more for discussion with other editors, and not GDB. I have talked to GDB repeatedly about why his edits are in my mind problematic.  I have done so civily in several venues, including my talk page, the COIN posting, types of unemployment talk page, and this request for comment.  His response has been to dismiss my, and others' analysis and deny that there is a problem.  And not in a way that I would characterize as civil.  He has also avoided answering some simple questions that have a bearing on his interpretation of policies.  I don't believe I've called his comments 'ridiculous' or that I've 'obviously' missed a point or that I have no points worth addressing.  Common sense for me, would be listening to the suggestions and advice of the many editors who have been offering them.  GDB has not done anything blockable, but lots that is in my mind questionable.  These policies and guidelines should apply to everyone, not 'everyone but Guido den Broeder'.  This talk page is getting absurdly lengthy, when all the issues here could be resolved by getting possibly COI edits reviewed by neutral editors and not irritating other editors.  WLU (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus to block
There is talk about the COI/N discussion having consensus to block. In my view, den Broeder can contribute usefully to chess articles, and if he was blocked, I would propose to unblock and mentor him for those articles. I have also seen improvements in his behaviour, and I think talk of blocking is overly threatening. I know the arbitration request got rejected, but any future arbitration case would also look dimly on examples of excessive blocking and threats of blocking. Please can we not bandy around statements about "consensus to block" and instead concentrate on discussing the issues here. From what I've seen, den Broeder is capable of improving and changing his behaviour. I may move this statement to the main page at some future date, but wanted to record it here for now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My stance with regard to the reliability of PhD theses has without hesitation been confirmed on the Reliable sources Noticeboard, so once again the consensus of Wikipedia supports me and overrules the consensus among opposing users. There has not been a single case where it is otherwise. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you still need to learn to work better with others. You've managed to work with me, but that is not difficult. Others are more insistent on doing things properly, and while you may be right some of the time, they will be right some of the time as well. Keep talking to people, and not just arguing with them. That goes for others on this talk page and RfC as well. Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Guido den Broeder for 3RR breach on Types of unemployment (48hrs as a progressive block given a previous 3RR block). The 4 reinsertions also included reference to his own work and after all the concerns and cautions to be careful, where there might be COI issues, this was was being disruptive over and above just 3RR. Block notice sets out the details.
 * Thanks Carcharoth for your comments, I've also cautioned WLU who reached 3 reverts. David Ruben Talk 01:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the block I think it is fair to limit comments until GDB is again able to contribute to the discussion. WLU (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Section headers
Just changed the section headers back. The reason being that it broke the links from elsewhere on the page. If anyone changes them back, please fix the links. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on view by SunCreator
While I appreciate that you tried to find a compromise, all I see is that he tries to defend the inclusion of his website without any good arguments, and that when you throw him a lifeline out of the blue, he jumps to it and claims he us "going with the flow". There is or was no good reason why the link should be included at all (it goes against WP:EL quite clearly), and there was no good reason why he didn't "go with the flow" when a number of admins suggested that he didn't edit in a manner which might even suggest a COI problem. As you can see on the talk page of this RfC/U, he still doesn't believe he has made any controversial COI edits (if you are in an edit war with different editors on different pages, then no matter if you are in the end right or wrong, it at least is "controversial"). As for his wikilawyering: perhaps it needs a different term, but the discussion that lead to this reply is a good example of his discussion tactics, where he avoids or ignores everything that doesn't fit in his objectives. You can also see his reply to the opening statements of this RfC/U, where he lists five policies (including one essay, but whatever), without indicating in any way why thy are relevant. Similarly, he states that "I contest that certifying users have tried to resolve this dispute", which is of course incorrect (if e.g. this does not count as "trying toresolve the dispute", then what does?). Fram (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not investigates if Guido's website meets WP:EL requirements, however the removal summary refers to 'Dutch site without English content' and Guido noted it as the reason as shown  here and soon after WLU said the Non-english sources are allowable. Thus making it seem as if the removal was as at least unclear. Unfortunately as I said below and on View_by_SunCreator I then went on to mistakenly make this edit, editing the wrong URL to add (in Dutch). If I had noticed Guido's website was not listed, I would of most likely asked on the talk page or checked more, but as I thought it was already listed I incorrectly edited. Thus leading to the confusion between yourself and Guido. In my view Guido's following edit was entirely consistent, he thought he was correcting my mistake. You can understand that if you follow the discussion on User_talk:Davidruben closely, but it makes no sense for anyone just reading on Basic income's edit history and talk page. This is an unfortunately result of discussing the same subject on different talk pages.
 * I do not have a few spare hours to investigate on and reply to so I have to skip that right now. (Eventually got around to replying to this, see below.)


 * Regarding User:Scarian/Med1, to me that had not got to around to trying to resolve the dispute, it was just getting going and then aborted. Scarian (most wisely) saying 'refer this to a different admin', most likely because of this and this. The former not being written in a natural English way by Guido due to English not being his natural language. I would be interested to read what happened with the referring admin but I have not seen such a discussion yet. SunCreator (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, now coming back to this issue of and to round up my replies after having looked at this. Guido is frustrated and getting fed up of explaining things. He posts this edit but does not explain why. It's easy when you know, the point is the the date/time stamp was missing before and by it's addition things should be clear. This makes sense because most people should realise it, but I doubt all would and to that end Guido is making a slight mistake by saying 'The neutral reader will see it for what it is' because he is assuming they will, but I'm not so sure! But regardless the date/time is important because all the COI issues cited in the top of the 'Userful link' section happened prior to the advice given by User:Jossi here. Therefore it's impossible that he could of followed the advice before he actually received it.  I can understand Guido's frustration. It's tedious for him to explain it. It's tedious for me to investigate each such issue that is cited against him and so far everything I've investigated has resulted in the same conclusion that Guido has done something that was done with a good faith reason for him to do it. SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While you have admirable good faith, I don't see that Guido thinks the date is the important thing, or why it was so hard (tedious) to explain that. On the other hand, I notice that he bolded the word advice in Jossi's text, another example of his wikilawyering: "it was only an advice, I didn't have to follow it" (my interpretation of his post). The edits that directly sparked this RfC/U (the edit war on Basic income) happened a few days after Jossi's post, so the date on that post is quite irrelevant. So it is, contrary to what you claim, perfectly possible that he would have followed that advice on the basic income article, but he refused to do so, probably because it was only an advice, not an order. I would urge you to take a closer look at things before excusing this user: it may be tedious, but a more thorough investigation will lead you to different conclusions. than the ones you reached above. Fram (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunately and saddening that even with the effort I take to respond, my words have been misrepresented. It seems increasingly I'm being targeted for stating an opinion which have already been summarised as incorrect without even allowing me the courtesy to reply. I wonder if in fact it's worth replying at all, however following the suggestion above I will re-investigate throughly again and reply once done. SunCreator (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quite baffled, actually. "without even allowing me the courtesy to reply"? What's that supposed to mean? And if you claim I have misrepresented your words, then it would be nice if you would back that up with perhaps an example. You said that "Therefore it's impossible that he could of followed the advice before he actually received it." I replied by showing that he didn't follow the advice in those edits after he actually received it (the basic income edit war). That he couldn't have followed Jossi's advice before he received it is a truism (although he could obviously have followed the quite similar advice he had received earlier from other admins and from the policy which he was well aware off), but is beside the point. 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought we are suppose to be having a discussion. One in which my input was welcome. You did invite me to comment here. And I was very reluctant to comment as I have nothing to gain here, I don't have any interest in GDB other then an Afd that I randomly checked from my Afd page. But I did after a while comment and here now it seems that my views have already summarised as incorrect. If my views are not required then fine. I have already spent to much time investigating this subject(at least 20 hours) and it would be far more productive to be improving wiki pages rather then getting into a situation.
 * This is example of misrepresentation: "So it is, contrary to what you claim, perfectly possible that he would have followed that advice on the basic income article". I never made such a claim. Please re-read what I wrote above because I'm referring to all the COI issues cited in the top of the 'Userful link'section. I did not take into account or refer to GDB's later issue which you are assuming I'm including. The reason being because I thought I'd already dealt with it here and here.
 * You may well be correct that the date/time issue was not GDB's reason, but as we are basically commenting on what GDB meant by an edit he didn't explain, without further comment from GDB it seems unlikely we will know. It could be that he meant BOTH the 'advised' and the date. The date was added then Jossi's comments was taken in full, but why in full? Why not the quote up to yours? If he wanted to emphasis 'advised' but not date what would seems a suitable thing to do. Later he replied 'The neutral reader will see it for what it is' and still didn't bold the 'advised', but did that a minute later maybe as after thought. I don't know what is correct but please allow the possibility that other interpretations might be of equal value to your own.
 * Regarding Jossi's comment. This seems to be your main point, because it seems you are claiming it's wikilawyering on the bases that GDB believes it's because it's only 'advised'. But how do you know if he understands it's meaning? Has GDB been asked? Jossi's quote has a rather double meaning 'The user should be advised to exercise caution, and most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others. After all, it should be very easy to check the article and see if there is material that should not included, or vice-versa, COI, or not'. The full intended meaning here is indirectly implied, it's not literal, the literal meaning is for someone to advise him. It does depend on you level of English to grasp it's full intent. GDB level of English is Category:User en-3, that's not Category:User_en-4, nor Category:User_en-5 and nor Category:User_en-N. As I've already stated I believe some of the issues are related to language. So anticipating some such mistakes will occur.
 * Why is it tedious for GDB? It's tedious because he explains things but often in an unclear way and then hears the same claim against him again becomes dismissive because to his mind he's already explained it. Why should he explain it again(in fact I admire his ability to keep on replying, personally if I was in his position I'd have given up before now). So after a while of these claims against him his attitude become dismissive of the whole argument against him, so yes it's tedious for him. That's not healthy, but I can understand it. SunCreator (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, SunCreator, Guido den Broeder claims on his talk page that in the case of a 3RR warning I gave him a few days ago (for four reverts on one pagein 24 hours), you had "testified that 3RR was not violated". Can you tell us where and when you have done this, and on what basis? If I give people incorrect 3RR warnings, it is useful to hear where my interpretation of 3RR is wrong. Fram (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not used the phrases '3RR' anywhere. I expect Guido den Broeder claim is based on View_by_SunCreator.
 * Okay, have now just checked his talk page, yes Guido is correct, because he made this edit in good faith, because I mistakenly made this edit as I already said in View_by_SunCreator. My making of that edit does really imply that I meant to add (in Dutch) to his site, but my mistake was not noticing it was the wrong URL and his site was already removed. Pity I did not notice, but the mistake was made and so I apologize to you Fram and to Guido, because the resulting edit warring was as a result of my mistake and I accept responsibly for it. SunCreator (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your explanation. You are incorrect, however, that a potentially good edit, or an edit based on the advice of someone else, is exempt from 3RR. It was a revert, and it wasn't the last one either, so the fact remains that he reverted four times there, and that the warning was correct. Your advice was also not so good, because while I removed the site for being in Dutch and not indispensable with enough English language sites, Guido shouldn't have been the one to reinsert it per WP:EL, as the webmaster of that site (and treasurer of the organisation). This is a typical example where he takes the part of the advice he likes (a Dutch website can be inserted with the language indicated), and ignores all policies and guidelines which tell him not to include the website at all (WP:COI and WP:EL). Please note that he still reinserted it after these policies were explained to him again. I have struck my comment about the edit summary though, since that is understandable in the light of your explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
 * Totally agree with what Fram says here. Particularly appropriate in my mind is the comment on taking the advice he likes and ignoring the rest.  This has happened multiple times and is part of the issue with relating to the community.  WLU (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Jossi's name comes up a lot, and the diff usually posted is to the statement where he says a ban is not warranted. What's not often posted is the follow-up to this post,, which tempers the previous post and if followed, would mean we wouldn't be having this discussion.  Because someone says your previous edits should not result in a block or ban does not mean 'feel free to ignore whatever policies, guidelines or conventions you feel like'.  Conflict becomes inevitable, and Guido, you will keep running into this, just like you did on Dutch wikipedia, if you do not make an effort to discuss with other editors rather than ignoring them.  WLU (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I ready don't know the rules of 3RR, never been involved in such a thing, nor having reasons to read the rules. Wasn't even familiar with the phrase until this discussion started. I was thinking that a good faith edit is not a revert, but if that's not so, then so be it. SunCreator (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Overarching issues
For me the overarching issues are with how GDB chooses to interact with other editors - COI and sourcing issues are problematic, but relatively easily resolved. The greater problem for me is his assumption that his opinion is the correct one, and that any opposition is based on the other editor, often editors, are too stupid to see his points, or basing their actions on persecution rather than policies. I'm not sure what the policy or guideline might be, perhaps wikipedia is not a battleground, assume good faith, or etiquette. GDB can add information to pages, but it is often done in a way that raises my hackles, and comes across as strongly tendentious. The issues such as COI on sources and links have venues and means to address them, that are hardly inconvenient and quite standard - having a third party review and add information or potentially self-promoting sources is very basic, and removes any concerns any fair-minded editor might have about COI. I think GDB could use some mentorship in this area; wikipedia is a collaborative project, and GDB insisting that his interpretation and answer is always and completely correct in the face of ongoing complaints and discussions from numerous other editors works completely against collaboration, in my opinion. Anyone else's opinion? WLU (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree mentorship would be good. But only to a certain extent. GDB has his own style which (where it doesn't conflict with others) is a good thing. Working with others is absolutely the key to working productively on Wikipedia. Sometimes it takes people time to learn that. It is difficult to strike the balance between making things clear to people immediately (getting in early before bad habits develop), and not biting new editors (I'm not saying GDB is new, but the principle still applies). Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, his recent edit shows continuing to fail to understand block, that was reviewed, was for 3RR (i.e. being disruptive) and Dutch WP indicates has history of problems working within a framework of wikipedia guidelines and (as far as I can tell) already being mentored there. His new addition to the "Desired outcome" section of the RfC, shows continuing disregard for view of others and WP's policies & guidelines if they don't suit him; it breaches AGF, shows continues to misunderstand COI (that there is problem with self-referencing if others state there is, rather than it being up to GDB to decide if a problem), inability to understand 3RR and why he was blocked and ignores fact that another outside admin reviewed the block and found it appropriate (see User talk:Guido den Broeder). Biting of new editors is really not relevant to an editor who has been here over a year (English WP 15 March 2007, and Dutch WP 25 Jan 2007), and had repeated advice on whether their COI edits were appropriate or not at the appropriate venue of COI/N. The learning curve eventually reaches a level of expected proficiency in knowing how to work with other wikipedians. As per VPP, behaviour on other wikis may in the appropriate context be considered relevant. Using (I'll admit the very imprecise Babel Fish (website)) automated translation tool, see Dutch Wikipedia block log and, of direct relevance to WLU's suggestion of mentoring, this already seems to be occuring at Dutch Wikipedia according to Dutch ArbCom decission (an unblocking, or at least reduction of a block, I think -- I'm seeking clarification on the mentoring issue as translation is of poor quality). If he is already being mentored at Dutch WP, then would it be approapriate to mentor here in English wikipedia too ? i.e. would it be just needless duplication, or would it suggest problems interacting with others are so persistant that editing in any language should be under mentorship to help facilitate his collaboration with editors in each specific language-wikipwdia ? David Ruben Talk 00:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The block you linked to, which was lifted, was because user:JacobH had falsely accused me of threatening someone with violence. Several previous blocks at nl:Wikipedia were because I corrected one typo in my name in my user space, with permission from the user who made the typo. Admin claimed that this was forbidden. Another was a false claim that I had been using a sockpuppet. The last one, of two weeks, was given by said 'mentor' (who never did what he had been asked to do, to put it gently) because I archived some closed friendly discussions on my talk page. For reasons unknown he claimed that I was only allowed to do so on the last day of the month. At that point, and with a stalking mob reverting my every edit and producing an endless stream of insulting comments, I resigned and voluntarily requested to be permabanned. The same users then decided to harass me on en:Wikipedia. However, all the history on nl:Wikipedia is now under review by the present nl:Arbcom, and you would be well advised to await their report before drawing any conclusions. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to see the Dutch wiki issues as fairly irrelevant. If it means history must repeat itself here, so be it - translation and community mores is a twitchy issue, as is personal history.  Also, given the possible differences of policies, guidelines and community, a separate mentor is probably better for english wiki - I would think an admin a good choice here, more for implied knowledge of policies, guidelines and negotiation than the extra tools.  A member of the mediation committee might also be a good choice.  The ultimate goal is for GDB to contribute to wikipedia without causing disruption in the community.  I don't really care if he thinks he's being attacked, singled out or victimized, so long as it doesn't lead to edit warring.  WLU (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Before you go further on this road let me say clearly, that I will not agree to a mentor. I have not caused any disruption and do not intend to in the future. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in two minds about this idea. It's implied in the opening statement that GDB is the problem. Not a great foundation in my view to lead to a cooperative environment. My suggestions would be that
 * Everyone assumes good faith. In that assuming of good faith, forgets about the past, because mistakes being made are natural and not to hang onto assign it to anyone. That one leap of assuming good faith would resolve about 80% of potential problems in my view.
 * GDB makes efforts to communicate better. As a minimum that would be to fully take on board the advice given by Jossi and keep to it. I would have some other suggestions like changing his idea that others have common sense(they sometimes do not), that others can following his comments in multiple places(they rarely can), that other people will understand(they often cannot) when he cites rules without being specific to which part is referred to.
 * That COI is discussed in a neutral way, so that there can come about an understanding with GDB of COI's meaning.
 * There is other constructive things, but I suggest those above, in the hope that some agreement can be reached. SunCreator (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to GDB, the whole point of this RFC has amply demonstrated to me that you have caused disruptions (a 3RR while this RFC was running kinda seals the deal for me - a 3RR is a disruption problem). A large part of the problem is not seeing the concerns (conflict of interest, self-promotion and reliability) that your actions have raised with other editors as something serious.  Another problem is continuing to push your edits in the face of objections and deciding that you know better than any other editor what is best despite input from multiple editors and admins.  Finally, taking any qualified statement that your actions might not be immediately blockable as a vindication of your POV is also a problematic.  You may not be blocked or banned due to this RFC, but if you ignore it completely, assume no-one had a point here, and keep acting the way you have during this RFC, you will face something similar in the end.  Wikipedia is a community, and it has limited tolerance for disruption.  Eventually disruption bites you on the ass.  Consider this a nibble.  All it takes is caution in your edits, not adding your own material directly, and not creating pages for organizations or people that you have a significant involvement with.  It's not difficult and in most cases it shouldn't even affect your editing as it's a very circumscribed set of pages that this will affect.  The only other action required is being polite, rather than dismissive, about other editors' concerns.  Or ignore it, and keep getting smacked in the face with this every couple months.  As you like.  WLU (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not violated WP:3RR.
 * I see the concerns, but they are mostly based on bad faith (again, here). Hence, I will rightly continue to be dismissive.
 * What objections?
 * What POV?
 * I am not ignoring this RFC.
 * Wikipedia is not a community, but a project. This is where your misconceptions come from.
 * You want to impose restrictions that are not supported by the guidelines and policies, and in such a manner that I would not be able to contribute to the project. Do you not see that you are hurting Wikipedia's development? In the time that I had to spend on procedures, I could easily have written a dozen quality articles. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I have not violated WP:3RR., and note Mangojuice's reply; this is an independent admin reviewing, and supporting your block.
 * 2) I see the concerns, but they are mostly based on bad faith (again, here). Hence, I will rightly continue to be dismissive. - it's hard to believe that all these people are acting in bad faith. The simpler explanation is that your actions are actually problematic for other editors and the ongoing attention paid to your actions and responses is because your defenses have not been suitably satisfying to others.
 * 3) What objections?, , , , , , , Talk:Types_of_unemployment. A revert is an objection.  A discussion on the talk page is an objection.  A posting to a noticeboard is an objection.
 * 4) What POV, and , , .  And generally the POV that you are the innocent victim who has done nothing objectionable.
 * 5) I am not ignoring this RFC. - you are ignoring any suggestion that you might somehow have done something wrong in the past, that your conduct is less than exemplary or that it could be improved.
 * 6) Wikipedia is not a community, but a project. This is where your misconceptions come from. -The Wikipedia Community Wikipedia is built by the collaboration of its members, and it is a community.  It is not a battleground.
 * 7) I'd less rather impose restrictions (and I can't anyway, I'm not an admin). I'd rather you just weren't a dick.  I don't want any new rules applied to you, just the exact same ones that apply to anyone with a conflict of interest.  Microsoft employees aren't allowed to edit the Microsoft page, why do you get to edit Vereniging Basisinkomen?  Why do you get to decide that an article is neutral?  Why do you get to insert references to your own work?  Why do you get to decide that they stay?  And you aren't the only one spending time on this, I have, addressing your points as civily and with as much detail as I think is warranted.  Then I get brushed off, for no particular reason that I can see except you don't like my points.  The 'restrictions' that I think would help you as much as it would wikipedia (because you wouldn't keep getting complaints of self-promotion, unreliable sources and conflict of interest) are exactly the same as any knowledgeable contributor with a conflict of interest - third party reviews and insertions rather than doing it yourself.  It would take you less than a minute to add a request edit to a talk page, or drop a message on another user's talk page.  Had you conceded at the beginning of this that perhaps you shouldn't be making COI edits, you could possibly have written a dozen articles, on whatever you wanted, and with the use of that handy little template, they'd be in mainspace.  WLU (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) User:Mangojuice is wrong. He does not understand that reverting merely 'to keep a COI out' is vandalism. COI's are a normal part of Wikipedia and there is no valid reason to 'keep them out'.
 * 2) Since you are one of them, it is to be expected that you don't believe it, right?
 * 3) I see not a single objection.
 * 4) My view is equal to the prevailing policies and guidelines.
 * 5) I am not ignoring, but rejecting such suggestions.
 * 6) You missed the cleanup template on that page and did not check the talk page, where User:24 explains perfectly.
 * 7) Microsoft employees are allowed to edit the Microsoft page. There is no such thing as a COI-edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is my take on this situation as an uninvolved party. Guido, you are being told by numerous editors that you behavior has been disruptive.  To dismiss these concerns as bad faith is not going to fly as it is simply not true.  It is not likely that you will be blocked as a result of this RfC, but if you don't change your behavior a block or ban is probably not far down the road.  Your claims that Wikipedia is not a community is incorrect, I think this is where most of the problems come from.  This is a collaborative project and in order for it to work users must work together.  If you cannot work as a part of a group and accept compromises, than this is probably not the project for you.  When a number of editors suggest you change your behavior it is not a good idea to dismiss them as incorrect or being in bad faith as this is probably not the case.  As for your idea that "there is no such thing as a COI-edit" you are also wrong, when you add content in regards to something with which you have a personal connection and this is reverted by a number of editors this is likely a COI edit.  In short the best course of action for you would be to accept the suggestions presented on this page and

adjust your behavior accordingly continued arguing and wikilawyer is the real waste of time. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Mangojuice is wrong. That's fantastic.  Look Guido, you seem determined to ignore everyone else's comments and advice and continue on your own.  I think DJL is correct that this RFC will probably not result in a block or ban, barring an admin willing to do so on IAR or UCS, but that does not mean you are vindicated (though as with past pages, I'm sure you will portray it as such, despite me saying right now that you are not in fact vindicated, you merely avoided a block beyond the 3RR you got last week).  It's always possible that you are absolutely correct in your interpretation of policy, guidelines and community mores, and everyone else is wrong.  If you're right, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about.  If you're wrong, this pattern will repeat.  Note that it already has, once, from Dutch wikipedia, where I'm sure you also protested your innocence at length, now to English.  But keep proclaiming your innocence, your superiority of judgement and idiosyncratic interpretation of policies.  I inevitably see you ending up at arbitration, perhaps it will be convincing to them.  WLU (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * @Daniel: I will continue editing according to the guidelines and policies. As an uninvolved party, you may have missed that none of the opposing users actually works with me on any of these articles. The users that do, do not have a problem with my editing style, and that is what matters to me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Seriously?  Are you sure?  That's four pages with both our names on it.  Here is five.  Here's one with Carcharoth, who agrees mentorship might be good, and that you might want to work on cooperation.  I've also worked with you in the past here, and here, to the point that you asked me for assistance.  Where I basically gave you the exact same advice that I've repeated many times here, you admit to having a conflict of interest, and show the same idiosyncratic interpretation of the COI, notability and content guideline pages.  This is why diffs are more convincing than blind assertions.  WLU (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to say I find Guido's dismissive and combative attitude troubling.  I don't understand what you are talking about when you say none of these editors work with you on any articles as that is clearly not true.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * GDB has become dismissive as there has be ongoing line of claims against him that are typically best unclear and some of it I've looking into before, are just empty nothingness. It's what I would call smoke and mirrors, it looks like there is something, you look into it and then suddenly it's no longer anything, or not anything very much. And before one claim is cleared up there is already several more, or even repeating of the previous ones and so it goes on. The combative attitude is indeed troubling, one that could be resolved by those involved assuming good faith in discussion and not raising more issues. Basically, keep to the point on one issue, not have twenty running together, all it does is muddy the waters so you can't get to bring clarity on an issue. SunCreator (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * @WLU: having edits on a page is not the same as working with someone, or even working on the article. Only on Vereniging Basisinkomen did we work together for a short while, and you had no complaints. Then you withdrew. Carcharoth is not an opposing user. So please, stop these fabrications. Like SunCreator says, this is empty talk. There is only one issue here: the wrong belief of some users that a COI is a bad thing, and that therefore they are free to remove all sight of it without consideration for the user or the quality of the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Undent)SunCreator - your analysis of this process and GDB's actions is different from mine, and I'm OK with that. Almost certainly no official response will come from this RFC.

Guido - I did have problems with your previous edits to Vereniging Basisinkomen, and they're the same ones we've been discussing here mostly. Coatracking, problems COI and ignoring the input of other editors, COI and ignoring other's opinions, and againmisrepresenting or misunderstanding input you've received from other editors and synthesis original research. And given this post, I'm expecting you to add the information to the page, despite being the treasurer of the organization. Please do not. Get someone else to make the edit for you. The nutshell of WP:COI - Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups, unless you are certain that the interests of Wikipedia remain paramount. Take Jossi's advice - do this cleanly. Don't ignore advice or opposition because it slightly inconveniences you because it'll just create more disruption and you won't get to write those dozen articles because you'll have to deal with this shit all over again. request edit WLU (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problems you perceived were from before the short while that we worked together (a difference of opinion is not a problem).
 * I am not editing to promote my interests. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole point of a conflict of interest in general is that it blurs the line, for the person with the conflict of interest, on what is good for them/their company, and what is good for wikipedia (or investors, the public, what have you). I do not think anyone with a COI has perspective, and everyone who thinks the COI policy is a good thing agrees with me.  But perhaps thousands of other editors and Jimbo himself are wrong.  But fundamentally in my mind, you can not tell what is good for wikipedia and what is good for yourself, VBI or ME/CVS Verengigng.  You were obviously wrong in at least the latter case as the page was deleted.  Go ahead, discount my opinion and my diffs with whatever lawyering you want.  Either you're right, and no problems will follow you around like the scent of a dead woodchuck, or you're wrong and you'll have to deal with this again and again until you are either blocked, leave, or change your behavior.  Theoretically it's possible you managed to hit up against 10 other editors, 5 of which are admins, who were just looking to smear your good name with unfounded accusations and a mis-interpretation of policy and guidelines.  Regression toward the mean suggests that your next round of editors will be more fair minded, provided that it's their problem and not yours.  WLU (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your own opionions, insights and expectations. It does not follow that I should share them, nor that I am only allowed to make edits that will stand until the end of time. You are not entitled to continuously show bad faith. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are not super-users
Please can we stop the admin puffery? WLU above has just said: "Theoretically it's possible you managed to hit up against 10 other editors, 5 of which are admins...". The RfC itself (written mostly by Fram, I believe) says: "In the past month, at least four editors (including three admins)..."; and "going so far as to ask for actions to be taken against one of the admins involved"; and "admin Scarian tries to explain"; and "another uninvolved admin points this out to him"; and "another admin, EdJohnston, steps in"; and "[GDB] makes totally misrepresented claims, to the general administratorship"; and this old version of the RfC has: "note that admin Jossi has..." (I removed this and would have removed the other instances of admin puffery before I realised that that viewpoint was too deeply ingrained in the RfC). Nearly all these quotes are examples of a user (Guido den Broeder) being asked to accept what someone says about article content because they are an admin. This is most definitely not what the role of admin is meant to be. Admins are trusted to use certain tools, but when it comes to judgments concerning content, they are no better or worse than many long-term established editors who have no interest in being admins. Much of the tone of the RfC comes across as "admins told you what you were doing wrong, you should listen to them". Admins can be, and often are, wrong. It is the quality of the arguments, not whether someone is an admin or not, nor even the number of people agreeing with an argument, that matters. Search throught this talk page for instances of people talking about the opinions of editors and admins, and in many cases you will see a viewpoint that perpetuates the damaging myth that admins have some special status in content disputes (and COI is a content dispute because people need to assess the content to decide whether the COI is relevant - in the Melody Amber chess tournament case, I, acting as an uninvolved editor, not as an admin, concluded that the COI was not relevant and the basic content of the edit should stand, though I modified the content slightly). Admins do have experience, but please have the courtesy to respond to their arguments, and not their status. In other words, please focus on the actual content and COI issues, rather than promoting a false emphasis on who is and who is not an admin. For example, the Melody Amber chess tournament issue and the aborted mediation attempt, are still listed under "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute", and Fram or WLU (to name just two users) have not responded to my view that the mediation and the original Melody Amber chess tournament issue was based on a misunderstanding that has subsequently been resolved. I've never disputed that GDB has a COI on the other articles mentioned here, but I think any potential COI in chess articles can be handled without making it a supporting exhibit in this RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A few comments. Basically you are right, of course. But when it is about interpretations of policy, I think, in a RfC/U, it is quite significant if a user ignores or rejects the opinion of a number of admins, who are supposed to know our policies quite well. If it was a "you are an editor, I'm an admin, so I win" discussion only, then the admin should get a slap on the wrist for using that argument. If it was solely a content dispute, idem. But this is a policy and behaviour dispute, and that's why the fact that it are not some random editors, or some editors with an agenda (like the Dutch ones who came in to continue the dispute on the Dutch Wikipedia here), but experienced editors with a normally firm grasp of policy, is important. I don't care in this RfC/U about the content of his edits, I care about the violations of COI and EL, and the attitude, the "I know the policies better than even the admins" that pervades these discussions (e.g. the Mangojuice is wrong statement about his 3RR block).
 * I have not responded to the Melody Amber Chess Tournament case because it is only a minor note in this dispute in my opinion: I listed it as an example of his insistence to reinsert his own work (books, website, articles, ...) despite objections. In the case of Melody Amber, an uninvolved editor (you) decided correctly that his books are relevant to include, and no one as far as I know is supporting their removal anymore: if someone did, he or she should take it to the talk page. But the relevant part for this dispute is that Guido den Broeder is not the one to reinsert his own works when there is a dispute about them, but he should let that be decided by other, uninvolved editors, while giving his input on the talk page. He was rightly convinced that his books should be on the Melody Amber page: he was equally convinced that his website should be on Basic income and so on. He still gives no sign of understanding that this is not for him to decide, and that it is our policy per COI and (in the case of external links) EL that he should not reinsert such links and references. This RfC/U is not an attempt to remove all references to Guido den Broeder from Wikipedia: I have never argued that his books should not be included in the Melody Amber article. This RfC/U is a (failed, it seems) attempt to get him to suggest all edits which may even have a remote chance of a conflict of interest on the talk page of articles, where others can judge more neutrally about them. This is the advice (in one form or the other) which he has gotten from about everyone involved in this, even on this very page: but he still rejects this proposal (or the proposal for mentoring). Fram (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not reinsert the books during a dispute, thanks. Meanwhile, my right to edit is no different from that of any other user. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, please do not refer to the website of the Vereniging Basisinkomen as my website. I do not own it, and do not decide by myself what goes on it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guido, please... You reinserted the books on April 15, right in the middle of the dispute on the talk page of the same article (Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament). Fram (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly not. At the time there was consensus on the talk page to include the books. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is how the talk page looked at the time of your reinsertion. There was no consensus, there was clearly a dispute going on. Fram (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A dispute is not the same as a difference of opinion. Editors that only offer an opinion but no arguments, who are rather harassing another user, are not participating in a dispute. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guido, please, just spend some time editing other articles for a while. Let this RFC die. Everyone has made their point by now and we are going round in circles. And it would be nice if others would let Guido den Broeder edit some other articles in peace. He may have made some mistakes and not been willing to back down, but this whole episode has hardly been pleasant for him either. Sometimes it takes time for people to adjust their behaviour. Let's just give him that time, even if (as I suspect) we all have different opinions on the amount of change needed. Please, let's not repeat the same arguments ad nauseum. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is stopping him from editing other articles in peace, and nobody is forcing him to respond here, but I could hardly let his claims that there was no dispute and that there was a consensus on the talk page just pass. I have no intention of keeping this RfC/U artificially alive, but I am pessimistic about the adjusted behaviour when there has been no acknowledgement that some past behaviour has been going against accepted practices here. Of course, no acknowledgement is needed in the end, it's the actual edits that count, but in itself this part of the dispute resolution seems to have failed... Fram (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth: I'm not familiar with RfC's so I am not quite sure what is expected of us but yes, we seem to be going around in circles now, nobody is moving an inch. A conclusion that we could perhaps make may be that the guideline WP:COI is somehow incomplete, leading to different users filling in the blanks in a different manner. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Fram hit every single point I was thinking of making and agree completely with what s/he says. The Melody Amber incident ended not beause GDB managed to convince other editors of the correctness of his actions, but because an independent party inserted the books. Which is how all COI disputes should be handled.

Guido - if you think the COI guidline is in correct, the proper approach is not to push it until it breaks, but to bring it up on the COI talk page, solicit opinions and seek consensus on changing it. Consensus can change. In this case, the amount of opposition you are getting suggests that it has not changed and you are working against what most editors agree with. And yes, a difference of opinion is a dispute if it's serious enough for people to be reverting your changes. You are not the sole editor and the ultimate authority on what is a dispute. WLU (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that the guideline is incorrect, only that it is incomplete. I do not think that I am the ultimate authority either, just that I am correct. Please stop thinking for me (goes for Mangojuice, too), I am quite capable of having my own thoughts. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your thoughts do not determine consensus on wikipedia. The community does.  And you've got to either conform to the community, or change the communities mind.  If you're doing the latter, then the COI talk page is the place to start, not making your point on mainspace pages.  We are a community, not a solipsism.  Mangojuice is not 'trying to think for you', he is indicating that your understanding of the policies and guidelines involved is incorrect.  WLU (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What he thinks to be my understanding, is not my understanding.
 * What you think to be my goal, is not my goal. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But when you're blocked, you can't edit. A good reason to listen to admins and the consensus represented by wikipedia and the opinions of its editors.  WLU (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a good reason (there may be other reasons, but not this one). Once again it seems that you are making a wrong assumption about my goals, as well as the wrong assumption that I do not listen. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a very good point for this RFC to pause, as Carcharoth suggested above. I think most points have already been stated and everyones' views aired, as is the purpose of RfCs. So now, given eveyone has stated they listen to the views of others, it is time for a WP:Truce reflection and see if there can be a more harmonious future work on articles. Past edits have been discussed at length, what counts now are future contributions and how they are undertaken. I therefore endorse Carcharoth's view that it is now time to give some space for all involved editors.
 * A RfC is closed and relocated into RfC/Archive if no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time and the dispute appears to have stopped, the parties to the dispute agree to close the RfC, or dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution (see Requests for comment/User conduct. So if there should be any new concerns or queries then a fresh discussion thread may be started. This would apply if others wish to review or comment on GDB's future contributions, but equally if GDB himself would like to seek help with his approaches at trying to edit a range of articles (or where difficulties or uncertain best-approaches are encountered). The range of lesser & higher steps are discussed at dispute resolution process, but for now I strongly suggest the (tit-for-tat like) discussion finishes and we all have a breather :-) David Ruben Talk 02:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Guido is used to being unable to edit (on the Dutch wikipedia that is the usual fate of someone who does not use a pseudonym). But, does it harm Guido or wikipedia when he is unable to edit? That is, does wikipedia want to be an encyclopedia or a social network where a group of IRC kiddies can exercise the power they lack in real life? Erik Warmelink (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ErikWarmelink, I don't think this is helpful (i.e. irrelevant whether GDB has IRC presence or not, as to how he works within wikipedia). Unless you are commenting on specific edits, edit-comments or inteaction with other editors, then I'd caution that the above certainly does not raise the standard of WP:AGF that others have commented upon to GDB, so please see WP:Civility. I'd refer you to my preceeding posting, I think this is a good time to pause on this RfC, unless new problems or issues of clarification arise :-) David Ruben Talk 01:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I find Erik's comment, while perhaps not eloquently put, very much to the point. What I see, with Erik, is a big divide between two groups of users: one group (to which I belong) is here to write an encyclopedia, the other to carve out and picket a social environment. The present situation is that the second group gets to decide which members of the first group are welcome, based on their willingness to acknowledge the pickets rather than on the quality of their contributions. This RfC can well be seen in that light. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if you misrepresent the role of admins (and non-admins helping with the same activities). There are two ways to help Wikipedia: a continuum between a) creating/editing content and b) administrative work to protect that process. It's a fairly repetitive critical view, usually by timewasters and other malcontents, that anyone involved in b) is doing it for some cliquey agenda - rather than the reality of wanting to help stop damage. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about administration, which is of course a normal part of any endeavour. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gordonofcartoon
Clarification: user tried to prove his pet theory that the Da Costa syndrome is an anxiety disorder (it is not classified as such by the WHO) by pointing to some website, the single source on the internet where such a claim can be found. This after he just made a COI complaint against another user who did the same thing with a rival pet theory back in December (except that that user had published a book about his theory which got some coverage). User doesn't seem to understand the notion of reliability. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a major misrepresentation: as I said at WP:COIN I have no such pet theory. As also discussed at WP:COIN, other editors than myself have warned that previous user - see WP:COIN and User talk:Posturewriter.
 * GdB, on the other hand, has attracted comment for previous tendentious editing - the whole reason why this RFC exists - and has a definite COI with a major role in an advocacy group that seeks to downplay psychological aspects of conditions in this territory. Even if he didn't, trying to push unsourced theories in discussion, such as poisoning and gunfire fragments, is still OR directed at physical explanations. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you simply discuss content on the article's talk page? I can really recommend that method. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a waste of effort when editors are determined to operate outside policy. More useful to bring it here and help try to stop the damage. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. Have fun then. Leaving you to it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

29 May block for edit warring
Blocked for further edit warring, and despite 2 other admins not overturning his block (noting "unnecessarily aggressive conduct on this talk page"), to the central question of whether edit warring or not, his final remark (in a discussion thread that has run its course with threat to leave the project if I do not withdraw from his talk page - I'll comply) of "I will not admit to anything that I did not do". David Ruben Talk 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you editorializing your block? Either state the facts, or say clearly that the above is your opinion. Guido is right to object on his talk page that you are saying things here that he cannot respond to, or rather, you are presenting things to give a certain impression. Please let people form their own opinions. Carcharoth (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought I was stating facts - blocked, unblock request denied x2, a discussion thread that seemed to have reached its end (he asked for me to withdraw from that and I will) and he disagreed that he had been edit warring (and now states re above post "chose to continue your fabrications"). I agreed that this RfC should have been paused as you had previously suggested to see if "there can be a more harmonious future work on articles" "and how they are undertaken", unless "should be any new concerns or queries". His being blocked again for edit warring some 3 weeks later was, IMHO, appropriate to note in the RfC. The block is due to expire 7 days after 00:47, 30 May 2008, and he announced at 00:54, 30 May 2008 that he would be on a wikibreak until July 1, 2008 - I'll let others "form their own opinions", but indeed he will not be able to respond here (via block and his own real-world availability) for a period of time, which of course must be fairly considered.David Ruben Talk 08:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * David Ruben, I have not been editwarring, thanks. I find your block, as I find previous blocks, an abuse of admin power, and your summary in my block log highly defamatory. I will ask for a review of your aggressive behaviour against me, which you continued during my block and again as soon as it expired, once the situation on nl:Wikipedia has been cleared up, since admins on either Wikipediae are now justifying their attitude by pointing to block decisions on the other. This house of cards will collapse. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That second block finally had 3 unblock requests declined, with last being even more critical of you than I had (see ). So 2 blocks in en:Wikipedia, 4 other admins upholding unblock requests in en:Wikipedia, and seemingly 1st action after expiry of block being article talk thread giving notice for possible further editing against consensus in en:Wikipedia - situation on nl:Wikipedia not directly pointed to in decissions on blocks for edit warring here in en:Wikipedia. Why not just resume article & talk page collaborative contributions and so prove all previous comments in this RfC as being historically irrelevant, rather than continuing to deny past upheld (by others) edit warring blocks ? David Ruben Talk 20:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying it more often doesn't make it true, and reviewing admin fell silent when I asked for evidence. I have never edited against consensus either, thanks. Giving notice to do so? I am once again asking you to stop fabricating stuff. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing admin had stated had looked at your past edits, so no requirement to engage in debate having concluded "disruptive nature" and having "Suspending request, to review". Edit warring is editing against consensus, or at the very least editing without having established a consensus. Your repeated assertions of my fabricating are getting wearisome, and as a RfC is supposed to be a range of views of many editors, so I invite others to comment or close this current thread.David Ruben Talk 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * David, I think we have a philosophical difference here, along the lines of what the definition of "is" is.
 * As I understand the situation, GDB continues to insist that he is never truly guilty of edit warring, on the straightforward grounds that he disagrees with the admins who blocked him for edit warring. He does not agree with his conviction; therefore, as far as he is concerned, it did not happen in any meaningful sense.
 * A hundred editors -- a million editors -- could all say that he is edit warring and/or making changes against consensus, and their views would not change his interpretation of his actions. He is the sole and final arbiter of his actions.  Every action he takes is justified in his mind, and therefore he cannot have transgressed any policies.  The mere fact that many editors have complained, removed his changes, or blocked him from editing does not, in his mind, really indicate anything about the appropriateness of his actions, because he is  not convinced that his actions were really wrong.  (Instead, it merely shows that all editors who oppose him are uninformed and/or biased against him.)


 * Guido, I think that continuing this conversation is a waste of everyone's time. Your assertions come across as hairsplitting and wikilawyering.  Furthermore, within hours of templating an established user about assuming good faith, you are posting accusations here that multiple editors lied in their edit summaries.  (There's really no other interpretation here:  Either the admin blocked you for (perceived) edit warring, and said so candidly, or the admin blocked you for something else, and lied about it when he (or she) put edit warring in the description.)
 * However, I'm inclined to find a compromise. There will be times when other editors find it appropriate to refer to the events that are noted in your block log.  You object to the concise statement that "This user has been blocked for edit warring."  Do you have a preferred way for other editors to refer to the number of times you've been blocked from editing?  If so, please post it here as a non-binding suggestion for other editors.  If not, then I think we can end this discussion thread.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, I did not say that the admin didn't perceive edit warring, I said that he perceived wrong. Admin misinterpreted the guideline Edit war and incorrectly assessed the consensus.
 * Your speculations are not helpful. As other users and I have said so many times already, if you want to know what I think, do not presume to read my mind. Ask!
 * If you think continuing this RfC is a waste of time, then don't continue it.
 * With respect to my block log: I will request for it to be cleared. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this not essentially what I said -- that your definition of edit warring is materially different from everyone else's, and that you are convinced that your interpretation is the only correct one?
 * I seriously doubt that your block log will be cleared. I'm not even sure whether it can be done, or where you would propose such a thing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is your speculation. Why don't you ask me what my definition is? Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)