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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not needed, I can confirm that I am. It's mentioned on my user page as well as on the VBI website.[1]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userful link

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Editor_COI_and_COI.2FN_proposal_.2B_review_my_actions

Wikipedia:COI/N#Guido_den_Broeder_vs._others

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You forgot admin User:Jossi, who pointed out that Guido should exercise caution, and "most certainly not to engage in edit-wars with others".[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Whatever. The neutral reader will see it for what it is. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:COI#Consequences of ignoring this guideline. David Ruben ^Talk 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, show me where I made a controversial COI edit. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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#Copyvio notice. David Ruben ^Talk 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an English source. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]