Prof. Anton Komaroff (2007): "None of the participants in creating the 1988 CFS case definition and name ever expressed any concern that it might TRIVIALISE the illness. We were insensitive to that possibility and WE WERE WRONG." |
Prof. Malcolm Hooper (2007): "The simplest test for M.E. is just to say to the patient ‘stand over there for ten minutes’." |
Unprotected
At Durova's request, this page has been unprotected. — Coren (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Coren. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ban review running on AN/I
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ban_review_for_Guido_den_Broeder Link to review
My statement
- In December, I was community-banned after a discussion on AN/I. The procedure did not satisfy the criteria recently suggested by ArbCom member Carcharoth at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Location_for_ban_and_unban_discussions. It was cut short, and users that were working with me did not get the chance to participate, so certainly the community was not widely represented; there were mostly passers-by. As a consequence, both an essay that I wrote and my block log got misinterpreted, and calls for evidence remained unanswered.
- The ArbCom has subsequently promised me a ban review after 3 months if I would show good editing on another project. When I met their criteria on nl:Wikibooks (as well as on various non-foundation projects) I asked for this review. Unfortunately, it seems that the ArbCom is currently tied up, and they did not respond to my request. Since December, many users that have worked with me expressed their disagreement with my ban when they found out. Administrator Seicer has apologized to me for repeatedly blanking my user page. My essay has sat at meta without complaints for all this time.
- I repeat here what I said to the ArbCom: I will not try to break or circumvent any restriction that is imposed as a condition to my unbanning. My goal is to collaborate constructively with other good-faith users. I do not expect to have many dealings with the users that banned me, since they contribute to entirely different sections of Wikipedia, but if I do meet them, I will do my best to get along.
- I believe that I have always acted with the good of the project in mind, even while I criticize the way it is set up. I fully intend to continue thus, as I do on various other projects to everyone's satisfaction. If there are any remaining concerns, I suggest to put me on probation, monitored by former administrator Durova if she is willing, and restrict me to 0RR during that time. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Replies to questions raised
I will try to answer all questions to the best of my abilities. I am kindly asking everyone who participates in the review to check here before making their final judgement. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Dylan620 asks me to 'drop the social experiment'. Apparently, there is still a misunderstanding here about my essay. The social experiment is Wikipedia itself, not something that I did. I merely wrote about it, like thousands of others have done, too; perhaps some users are unfamiliar with the literary format that I chose. I did not foresee the possibility of a misinterpretation, apparently a mistake on my part. In the future, I will post my essays elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Avruch asks what actions by me led to my ban. So let's have a look at the reasons that were provided by the users that called for this ban.
- Roux pointed to my block log.
- Fvw said that I was causing aggrevation.
- Fram pointed to my block log, the essay, and claimed that I was violating COI (subsequently found incorrect on the COI board).
- Sticky Parkin voted.
- Crohnie pointed to my essay and speculated beyond that, and mentions a page by WLU which was however not presented as evidence by WLU, who in fact did not vote to ban at all but instead asked for a proper procedure.
- Smashville claimed that my sole purpose was to disrupt Wikipedia.
- Verbal pointed to my block log, the essay, WLU's page, and claimed that I had made threats.
- Skinwalker not only claimed that I had made legal threats, but also that these were part of an experiment.
- HandThatFeeds claimed that I had abused Wikipedia for my entertainment.
- William M. Connolley voted.
- Orangemarlin voted.
- Tiptoety pointed to my block log and the essay.
- CharonX pointed to my block log and to reverts on my user page (for which Seicer recently apologized to me).
- Since I already commented on my essay, which was misinterpreted by some (certainly not by all), legal threats had not been made, no evidence was presented, and obviously my block log only showed things in the past, I am not sure how to answer Avruch's excellent question. IMHO what Malcolm Schosha said is food for thought:
- I have not followed this discussion, and I have never edited an article with Guido den Broeder. I have seen some of his comments in discussions on the Village Pump, and found those comments well thought out and insightful....and I noted that those comments seemed to differ from the majority views in interesting ways. I do not understand the details of the controversies that relate to his ban, but the process I see on the AN/I discussion impresses me as the lynching of a user who has made himself unpopular by criticising majority views with intelligence, an intelligence applied in pointed argument. I have not seen this ,mob rule, side of Wikipedia previously, and regret seeing it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looie496 is wondering whether I still stand by what I wrote earlier:
- I am however not aware of having caused any kind of disruption and have seen no evidence to substantiate such a claim. On the contrary, I believe that I have been extremely patient with users that have incessantly harassed and stalked me and purposely keep adding false information to medical articles to promote their opinion that a whole range of neurological diseases don't really exist or are psychosomatic in nature.
- I do indeed stand by this statement. Not only have many good-faith users supported me in this, but I have recently discovered that a user on the opposite side of the content dispute has a significant, undisclosed conflict of interest, and was using Wikipedia to favour their side in an ongoing case at the UK High Court. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- ArbCom member Rlevse claims that my review request was answered and in fact rejected. I have no knowledge of this, and think it most urgent that Rlevse produces this communication, which would be totally out of step with the email exchange that did take place and of which Durova has a copy. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Protonk claims that I have exhausted the community's patience. If that were so, that is now something in the past. We are presently discussing the future. But I have no reason to believe that it is true, for the simple reason that the community members that have worked with me, and who at no time have been consulted, have produced strong statements declaring the opposite. If that had not been the case, I would not have asked for a review. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Skinwalker claims that I have made 'repeated legal threats'. This is not true, which has been confirmed multiple times, yet users keep echoing this accusation. I have never threatened anyone in all my life, legal or otherwise. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- ArbCom member Coren writes that ArbCom demanded a topic ban and that I refused to comply. That is not a fair presentation of the situation. On the contrary, I have said and hereby state so again that I will obey any restriction that is imposed, even when I do not think that a topic ban is justified. I am not ScienceApologist. The ArbCom claims that the community had said that I had been pov-pushing, but as you can see from my reply to Avruch above, that was not the case. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify matters, while noting that your ban now rests in the community's hand since you chose to appeal that way (which is, I should point out, entirely legitimate): do you, in fact, explicitly agree to abide with Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year as stated to you in email? I expect you have then changed your mind since you replied "The suggested terms are therefore not acceptable to me."? — Coren (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I still find a topic ban unacceptable for the reasons I provided. But that doesn't imply that I would violate it, you jumped to conclusions there. It only means that I would challenge it, through proper channels, and abide with it for the time being. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 03:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify matters, while noting that your ban now rests in the community's hand since you chose to appeal that way (which is, I should point out, entirely legitimate): do you, in fact, explicitly agree to abide with Complete topic ban on CFS topics on all pages for one year as stated to you in email? I expect you have then changed your mind since you replied "The suggested terms are therefore not acceptable to me."? — Coren (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- MBisanz claims that I am banned from nl:Wikipedia for making legal threats, and that the ban was reviewed by stewards at meta. None of this is correct. Since other users also mention my block log at nl:Wikipedia, and the entries in that log are rather obscure (and in Dutch, of course), I'll list the occurrences here.
- 19 Jun 2007 blocked 1 year for sockpuppetry, subsequently found incorrect
- 20 Aug 2007 blocked 1 day as time-out
- 26 Aug 2007 blocked 1 day to cool off
- 06 Sep 2007 blocked 1 day, extended to 3 days, for correcting a typo that another user had made in my name, for which I had that user's permission
- 13 Sep 2007 blocked 1 week for the same thing, then unblocked when admin finally understood
- 24 Sep 2007 blocked 1 week by Troefkaart (enough said), subsequently found unjustified by the community and undone
- 08 Oct 2007 blocked 1 week by Oscar for reasons unknown to me
- 09 Apr 2008 blocked 1 week logged as editwarring, but rather to sort out a user's claim that I had made a physical threat to another user, which was subsequently found incorrect by the ArbCom, after which the block was lifted
- 14 Apr 2008 blocked 6 hours for 'editwarring' (undoing vandalism by a user to my text of an arbcom case that I had filed against him), extended to 2 weeks by Oscar
- 21 May 2008 blocked 1 day for archiving a few closed discussions on my talk page, extended to 1 month by Oscar
- 03 Jul 2008 blocked 3 months for refusing to comply to Oscar's demand that I'd meet him in person in my home town
- 05 Jul 2008 blocked indef because I reported Oscar to the police, which took some time to get done (note: not a legal threat, but the real thing)
- not in log, shortly thereafter but without informing me until a few days ago: above indef block changed into a punitive indef block with review due
- So when all the corrected entries are dropped, the only thing in this block log is a personal conflict with Oscar. Because I filed a review request at nl:Wikipedia, I cannot comment any further, and will leave any conclusions to the reader. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 02:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
On closing
If anything, this review shows that AN/I is not the right place to discuss bans. The fast pace of the board causes errors in the presentation of facts and attracts hit-and-run-replies from the gut, where due process instead requires proper hearing and thorough investigation. That again has not happened in my case. I therefore strongly support Durova's proposal at Wikipedia:Standard offer, but suggest a separate page for ban reviews. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Closed
Canvassing trail
...Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2007): "Various terms are incorrectly used interchangeably with CFS. CFS has an internationally accepted case definition that is used in research and clinical settings. ... The name myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) was coined in the 1950s to clarify well-documented outbreaks of disease;however, ME is accompanied by neurologic and muscular signs and has a case definition distinct from that of CFS." 20071226 |
Nancy Klimas (2008): "The one single predictor of who is going to stay sick after a viral infection is the severity of the initial viral infection." |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Thank you once again Guido for stepping into the heated debate on the ANI noticeboards with your helpful comments surrounding the edit conflict. I really appreciated that. Here's a barnstar for your efforts. ;) Cheers dude (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
Martin Luther King: "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see." |