User talk:Guido den Broeder

User

Talk

Edits

Pinboard

Drafts

Articles

Projects

Your request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Hi, Guido. In case you don't find your unban request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: don't worry, I've merely moved it to the bottom of the page. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

Pursuant to the banning policy and your current siteban, your ARCA request has been closed. Please feel free to appeal to the Arbitration Committee by email using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee, or by email to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Best of luck with your appeal. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Guido den Broeder (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Unbanned

Following a successful appeal to the arbitration committee, you have been unbanned under the following conditions:

• You are topic-banned from chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, and any similar condition or related subject.
• You are restricted to one account.

For clarity on the second restriction, the block logs of this account and of User:Roadcreature will be annotated accordingly. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Opabinia. I'm interested in other topics now on Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• Good to see you again, Guido. Het allerbeste, Drmies (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Dank je! Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paraduin

The article Paraduin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I am unable to find significant third-party sources to establish notability of this micronation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster _talk 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN

A proposal to reinstate your siteban is being discussed at WP:AN#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Paraduin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Paraduin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraduin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing per the discussion that you were involved in at WP:AN. Please note that this is a community ban. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by the methods described at WP:UNBAN. Black Kite (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Note for posterity, in case the community is thinking about unblocking in 2024 or something: Guido has started socking again. User:Dolberty, User:Pris La Cil. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. I don't know these two. Paraduin has thousands of fans, Kristina Pimenova has millions, and they overlap. I've never used socks, I only edit in my own name. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this is in any way amusing. Apart from falsely accusing me, you have blocked two innocent people, and more in the past. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI, User:Roadcreature is not a sock but a rename of my original local account and made no edits (the password was scrambled on my request). A new account in my name was later created automatically, without my knowledge, when SUL-accounts got forced. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not funny, which is why Floquenbeam was being ironic. I have deleted per G5 the article created by your sock Pris la Cil. Which part of "you are banned from editing Wikipedia" is difficult to understand? Black Kite (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Which part of I'm not that user do you not understand? How many people (users and topics) have to suffer because of your vendetta? Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a question: since you're banned, why are you still watching this page so closely that you are able to respond within half an hour or less to comments here, as you did to Floq's comment above? The only possible answer to that is that you're still active at Wikipedia. Regardless, the above socks are indeed obvious. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I get an e-mail when this page is changed. I remember a time when an accusation of sockpuppetry had to be investigated before you go around blocking people and deleting their work. I believe the tools are still available.Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Guido den Broeder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocked on fake grounds by a hostile administrator (see their comments of today). A handful of users that want me out of their way, to protect their pov, out of jealousy, holding a grudge from a distant past, or because they believe Fram's lies, doesn't constitute a community ban. There has to be merit to the proposal.

Decline reason:

Community ban was reimposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive290#User_Roadcreature_.2F_Guido_den_Broeder. The decision to reimpose the ban looks to be unanimous. There's no reason to believe you were blocked on fake grounds by a hostile admin. Instead, your ban was reimposed by community consensus. Yamla (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asking for Opabinia regalis to weigh in because I believe the Arbcom has something to say about all the unfounded sockpuppet accusations and the definition of community ban. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume Black Kite is the hostile admin, unless "blocked on fake grounds by a hostile administrator" is referring to my blocking the two socks today. Which is odd, because I don't think BK's comments today have been hostile. Freudian slip?

Anyway, Opabinia, you might want to remove talk page access; there is no way on earth the community is going to accept overturning the recently enacted ban, and there is no way on earth the recently blocked accounts aren't puppets (I suppose meatpuppets is possible, but unlikely, and the "we just share similar interests" scam is completely unbelieveable). Bonus points to the ArbCom for giving this guy another shot, but now it's just a timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, when we make a mistake, let's make sure that nobody is allowed to point that out. This is not an unban request. There is no ban. It's an unblock request. Out of curiosity: why is it so difficult to believe that more than 1 person on this planet is interested in Paraduin? It is mentioned in 30+ sources, and our Instagram has many followers, most of them Kristina fans as we posted a lot of BTS pictures. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

There very well is a community ban in place per the above link to the AN discussion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The link only shows a proposal to ban, a vote, and a close, but it lacks grounds for a ban. Without grounds, there is no community ban. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yamla, can you please explain how your decline reason ("it was unanimous") addresses my request ("no community ban exists if the proposal has no merit")? Also, how can the community (let alone a very small number of nonresponsive users) reimpose an Arbcom ban? Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm not getting sucked in to this. If you think the ban proposal has no merit then you are incredibly mistaken, but are free to request that the ban be lifted as invalid. See WP:UNBAN. This will be my last comment on this matter. --Yamla (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yamla, I can't ask for something to be lifted that doesn't exist. If you can't be bothered to even read the actual request, you shouldn't handle it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk page access removed. This is a complete timesink. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Guido den Broeder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20355 was submitted on Jan 17, 2018 23:57:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Guido den Broeder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20361 was submitted on Jan 18, 2018 14:42:30. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Guido den Broeder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20409 was submitted on Jan 23, 2018 17:44:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Guido den Broeder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #20411 was submitted on Jan 23, 2018 20:28:01. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Global ban request notification

Hello, Guido, due to your continued incivility, sockpuppetry and self-promotion this notification is to let you know that I have nominated you for a global ban in accordance with the m:Global bans policy at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. --SHB2000 (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)