Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 15 July 2008

Archives

ME/CFS, Basic Income

Template:HEC userbox 2

Da Costa's syndrome

Guido den Broeder; Thankyou for your note about other editors questions of synonym usage on 30-5-08; I have responded to your suggestion on 30-5-08 here and on 1-6-08 here Posturewriter (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

You're welcome. The general rule is that diagnoses should only be considered equivalent (never: 'the same') if there is significant consensus about it among experts. Note that the WHO classification (ICD10, the ICD9-CM is not a WHO product) is often misinterpreted. If two diagnoses are listed under one number, this does, in contrast to what many people think, not imply that they are equivalent, just that they belong to the same group. I practice, two diagnoses being equivalent is extremely rare. What usually happens is that old diagnoses get either combined or split. For instance, while Da Costa's syndrome cases are always Effort syndrome cases, Effort syndrome is not always Da Costa's. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder; Thankyou for your comments about Da Costa’s Syndrome on your talk page on the paragraph of 1-6-08 just above. I agree, and have responded to them on the Da Costa talk page on 8-6-08 here to avoid duplicationPosturewriter (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)posturewriter

ANI notices

Hey, thanks for leaving those ANI notices! I mentioned it, hoping someone else would take up the unfinished business, and it is nice to see that happening. Have you had a chance to look at any chess articles recently? Carcharoth (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I have little time for content this month, but I plan to return to editing and will look at some chess articles, too. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: your rfc

If sanctions or blocks (preventative measures) are applied for those issues noted in the RFC, then it is closed and has served its purpose. It's to indicate you were blocked (after the creation of the RFC and) for the same concerns expressed in the RFC - it doesn't necessarily mean you are still blocked or were a blocked as a result of the RFC. If the same problematic conduct were to continue, then it would go to the next step - arbitration. Does that clear it up for you? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was, however, not blocked for the concerns expressed in the RfC. Nor did the RfC conclude that there was a 'problematic conduct' by me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block log indicates "further reinserting links to own work despite repeated cautions to take care over COI" Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be so, but that was not an outcome of the RfC. Furthermore, this edit by me was based on consensus reached and is still standing. Note that the dispute was already resolved when I got blocked, that admin blocking admitted he misinterpreted the guideline on sources, and that I had not violated WP:3RR. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I section about you

AN/I and indefinite block discussion

I have started the discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complicated legal threat situation about your situation. Fram (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC) In light of the information presented there, I have indefinitely blocked you on this project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:57, 7 July 2008 (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). Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Some explanation is in order here. I have not made a legal threat, but I have announced legal action against Oscar by email, as nl:guidelines require in such a case. It is customary on nl:Misplaced Pages that during a legal procedure, the filing side is blocked, with seems reasonable to me. On en:Misplaced Pages, there does not exist a similar conflict. I apologize for briefly addressing the nl:Misplaced Pages situation on Oscar's en:talk page, but this was a one-time necessity because I could not post on nl:Misplaced Pages since I was blocked by him (in contrast to here, a blocked user's talk page can't be edited by the user), and for legal reasons, I had to give him a final chance. Now that the legal trajectory has started, I will not post anything relating to it until its conclusion. I would like to hear a second opinion, since it does not seem logical to me that I would be blocked on en:Misplaced Pages for something related only to nl:Misplaced Pages. However, if this is the custom here, then so be it. Protecting my legal rights and good name far outweighs my desire to contribute to en:Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Decline reason: WP:NLT very clearly states that you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages while you are attempting legal action. Had you not brought this dispute to the English Misplaced Pages, you would not have been blocked. As you have made use of the English Misplaced Pages to evade the nl. block, I completely agree that the block here is correct. Sam Korn 10:18, 7 July 2008 (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. I did not not bring this dispute to en:Misplaced Pages, thanks. It was brought here quite a while earlier by several users from nl:Misplaced Pages, including Oscar himself. By contacting Oscar I was merely following policy. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2008 (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). Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Reviewing admin states that I would not have been blocked had I not brought this dispute to en:Misplaced Pages. I have provided evidence that I was not the one who brought this dispute here (see above). Note that, though brought here by User:Oscar, the dispute does not relate to en:Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, note the objections to this block by experienced admins at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complicated_legal_threat_situation, that I did not in fact make a threat, and finally that no legal action is brought against Misplaced Pages. Decline reason: You appear to state above that you have initiated legal proceedings against another user on this Misplaced Pages, or are about to. WP:NLT states that "If you do choose to use legal action or threats of legal action to resolve disputes, you will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved and your user account or IP address may be blocked." Accordingly, you will remain blocked until the proceedings are resolved. —  Sandstein  12:59, 8 July 2008 (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. The guideline pertains only to en:Misplaced Pages disputes, which this one is not. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (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). Roadcreature (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: As above. Second reviewing admin has not addressed my arguments and doesn't seem to grasp the situation. In addition, there is no consensus to block at ANI. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Decline reason: There actually is consensus at WP:ANI about blocking you. One editor proposed a community ban, which is different, and that hasn't gained consensus. But every user commenting there so far has approved of blocking you. Furthermore, whether or not Oscar or anyone else made comments about the situation doesn't matter: you brought the legal conflict here when you made a threat against Oscar on en.wikipedia. This sort of out-of-channels threat is exactly why users are blocked for legal threats. If the legal situation becomes completely resolved (including if you drop all the complaints and all threats to re-initiate them), you may request unblocking again. However, if you make any further requests before that, I expect your talk page will be protected against abuse of the unblock template. Mangojuice 17:24, 8 July 2008 (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. @Mangojuice: You have the order of events wrong. There was no legal conflict yet when I contacted Oscar on his en:talk. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Notes with regard to ANI discussion The correct translation of my message to Oscar on his en:talk (Oscar, ik raad je aan om per onmiddellijk mijn blokkade op nl:Misplaced Pages ongedaan te maken. Beschouw dit als je laatste kans.) is: Oscar, I advise you to immediately undo my block on nl:Misplaced Pages. Consider this your final chance. I.e., his final chance to normalize our relationship, since he blocked me for trying to resolve the dispute on his nl:talk page. I have not initiated legal action against Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages lawyer Mike Godwin does not take sides in disputes between users, nor has he been asked to do so. I have not made any legal threat whatsoever. The dispute was not made cross-wiki by me, but by users Oscar, David Ruben, Jfdwolff and Robotje. I am not going to have any discussion with Oscar or anyone else about the content of a nl:dispute on en:Misplaced Pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I don't remember editwarring with Jfdwolff on any article. Generally, I have reverted once at the most, except for a few occasions when policy demanded reversion. I believe I restored a paragraph header a couple of times on a talk page, but let it go when user kept removing it. The info provided by Art Unbound is entirely incorrect. My problems with medical articles occur only when users commit or protect vandalism and original research, or use their admin power to prevent articles to exist, without consensus, i.e. things every good user should have a problem with. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Page protection

I have protected this page for 24 hours to stop the reversions. I have dropped a note at User Talk:Davidruben as well. Guido, please remain civil and don't use personal attacks like "aggressive stalker". Fram (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

There didn't seem a good reason for that since I reverted only once, and David said this was his last comment. Besides, as the ANI initiator you are hardly an uninvolved admin. I would prefer to see you address David's action that led me to summarize thus instead. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A word on RFCs

Posting a message does not reset the timer. The timer is a fixed date as defined in the RFC tag. You can end RFCs ahead of schedule by removing the RFC tag. MessedRocker (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What tag? We looked, but did not see one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

Case submitted by email 20080711 20:03 GMT+2

Indefinite block upon announcement of legal action elsewhere

I am kindly requesting a temporary unblock solely to enable my participation in this Arbcom procedure.

Involved parties

• Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sam Korn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Chaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Carcharoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Golbez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Davidruben (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Gmaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robotje (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Art Unbound (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• (Other) users participating at ANI and WP:NLT

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`

Arbcom notifying all parties would be greatly appreciated.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Evidence presented to blocking admin, unanswered.
• Unblock requests, denied.
• Questions asked to reviewing admins, unanswered.
• Notes regarding statements made at ANI. Response only by Davidruben, mainly consisting of a failed attempt to get me kicked from the Harmonious Editing Club.
• Calls for reflection by Chaser and Carcharoth at ANI, unanswered. Now archived. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Calls for reflection by Golbez and Gmaxwell at WP:NLT talk, unanswered.

Statement by Guido den Broeder

Upon ANI report filed by Fram, I was immediately blocked indefinitely by Future Perfect at Sunrise, who wrongly assumed that I had made a legal threat. Block was executed while ANI discussion had not even started, thereby prohibiting any defense there. Blocking admin failed to check back and note my response on my talk page.

First reviewing admin Sam Korn stated that I would not have been blocked had I not brought the nl:Misplaced Pages dispute to en:Misplaced Pages. I provided evidence that not I, but Oscar had done that, but reviewing admin failed to check back and note my response.

Second reviewing admin Sandstein completely ignored first reviewing admin's reasoning as well as evidence provided, and merely quoted policy, not noticing that the dispute is a nl:dispute so policy does not apply. Reviewing admin failed to check back and note my response.

Third reviewing admin Mangojuice completely ignored first and second reviewing admins' reasoning as well as evidence provided, wrongly assumed that I had brought legal action to en:Misplaced Pages, and wrongly concluded consensus to block at ANI (the discussion is still open). Admin failed to check back and note my response.

The question put to the Arbcom is, whether legal action between individual users relating to events on nl:Misplaced Pages does or does not warrant an indefinite block on en:Misplaced Pages, and to unblock if the answer is no.

Added notes.

• Since neither I nor Oscar is discussing or likely to discuss the content of the nl:dispute on en:Misplaced Pages, unblocking does not seem to endanger en:Misplaced Pages in any way (Gmaxwell's question).
• I find it disheartening to see several users state that legal action against another user is unacceptable and calls for punishment. They seem not to know that this is a basic human right. Except for Golbez on IRC, nobody seems to have even remotely considered the possibility that there may be a good reason for legal action, and that it might be the behaviour of the other user that should be judged unacceptable.
• Users Robotje and Art Unbound falsely suggest that a threat of physical violence was made. I am asking the Arbcom to deal with this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Arb case

Requesting an unblock is not a reason for an arbcase. If you want to file on admin misconduct or some other related reason, do so, but please do find a legit reason and use the template to open the case, then you can paste in statements. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You have not understood the situation, I'm sorry to say. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy from Request to Future Perfect at Sunrise

AN/I: Complicated legal threat situation: blocking

Dear and very learned: Future Perfect at Sunrise , I'd herewith kindly request the unblocking of my well refined colleague dr.user:Guido den Broeder MS, who here apparently at present is innocent blocked up by you, though already by the same mistake in the Netherlands too. His tiny protest against this unfortunate execution is by some of your colleagues alas expressed with rather exaggeration. Hoping to revision of your verdict still being possible, I'll remain sincerely Yrs: D.A.Borgdorff - PEng E.E. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Help asked to post RfA

{{helpme|Can someone please post my RfA (see above) at WP:RFAR?}} Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 18:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Because I can't post it myself. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The only way for me was to place above request on the talkpage thereupon. I'll hope this to be sufficient enough. Friendly regards: D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC) See on page: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration#Request copied from user talk:Guido den Broeder
      • Thanks, but nobody seems to notice it there. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

<- I saw this at the talk page of the requests for arbitration, and copied it across without prejudice - not really seeing any reason not to do so. Let me know if there's other clerical type stuff that I could help with... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A request for the arbcom to examine the Guideo den Broeder situation

G'day - I'm dropping this note in to you because earlier today I responded to a request to file a request for arbitration. My examination of events led me to believe that there may be some use in the arbcom examining this matter, and perchance resolving an issue or two, and you have been named as an 'Involved Party'. As such, your thoughts would be most welcome at the Request page.

Yours rather nervously to be wearing a clerk-ish hat for the first time,

PM - Privatemusings (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd drop this message off to you along with everyone else named! Personally, the best resolution for me would be for all legal matters to be put to rest, and for there to be an amicable resolution - though I understand that may not be possible. I am however an eternal optomist, and offer best wishes to you, both on and off wiki.... yours, Privatemusings (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Privatemusings. I see that my request to be temporarily unblocked so that I can participate in the RfA (my rights restricted to only that page and my talk) has not been answered yet. I now think that my participation is the only fair way to proceed, since several arbcom members are basing their view on assumptions that are incorrect. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to dropping legal matters: that would require Oscar to withdraw his statements about me, end his interference with me on nl:Misplaced Pages, and my full rehabilitation. So far, he has not been willing to even consider this, despite many users asking him to. I am nonetheless prepared to attempt mediation. There is still time. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer