User talk:Roadcreature

Archives

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’."

Template:HEC userbox 2

This user has moved to Wikisage

The click-template that I am using in my navigation template has just been changed by someone. As a consequence, the icons are blown up and navigation no longer works. Since I cannot edit or communicate, there is currently nothing that I can do about it. My apologies for the inconvenience. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is closed. We are waiting for Davidruben to consider Carcharoth's request. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation

Please note that you have exceed WP:3RR at Chronic fatigue syndrome. Please discuss on the talk page and don't edit war. RetroS1mone talk 22:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rule does not apply to restoring wrongly removed tags. Policy on tags comes first. Please stop removing dispute tags. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out to Guido a few times in the past, he has not used the tags correctly, and they should never have been put in in the first place. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, that's not for you to decide, which has been pointed out to you numerous times by various users. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you bc of your pattern of disruptive edits at 3RR. RetroS1mone talk 23:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse me for disrupting your pov, original research and illegitimate tag removals. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Progressive block for further edit warring (last was for 1 week). Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions clearly states "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt", you need to learn to work with other editors and along with [1] incivility/breach of good faith just continues to be disruptive to development of material. So 3RR applies, however much you previously have felt this does not apply to you alone, and 3RR is edit warring, which is disruptive and does need to be stopped to prevent disruption to the project and tying other editors up from useful contributions. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. David Ruben ^Talk 23:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Restoring dispute tags that were illegitimately removed is not editwarring. If it were, the rallying side could always avoid dispute resolution. Note further that there is consensus for the npov tag that I put back. By blocking me, User:Davidruben once again disrupts any chance of dispute resolution. Note that DavidRuben has been asked to withdraw from my case several times by a.o. User:Carcharoth. Davidruben is on the opposing side in this dispute.

Decline reason:

Yes that is considered edit warring, and that is exactly what you were doing. Declined — Tiptoety ^talk 00:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:

Please read the policy. Restoring illegitimately removed tags is not editwarring. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. I have not done this, but opposing users have. My edits were made solely to enable dispute resolution, which opposing users attempt to avoid. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:3RR which clearly does not include an exception for reverting the removal of tags. Edit warring over dispute tags is, actually, very disruptive. It's a strategy some use to hold an article hostage to obscure demands of a minority, and it is reasonable to remove them when they are misplaced. I would come down equally harshly on someone edit-warring to remove tags, but in this case it was multiple editors: at least WLU, Fram, RetroS1mone, and Jfdwolff, but only you were restoring the tag. You know about the 3RR, you have a long history of 3RR blocks, and yet you have consistently failed to grasp the central concept: discuss and do NOT go about constantly reverting. So this block is correctly placed and the duration is not at all unreasonable. Guido, please: I have experienced firsthand that you can be a valuable contributor. If you could just learn how not to be an edit warrior, it would really be better for everyone, especially Wikipedia. Mango juice^talk 01:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:

Please read the policy. It distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate tag removals. The tags are not misplaced, I am in fact not even in a minority position (the fact that the other side had more edtors at this point might make you think so, but look at the opinions on the various talk pages). Yes, editwarring over dispute tags is disruptive, but I have not been editwarring, nor have I in the past.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is edit warring, please don't compel me to protect this page for abuse of template. — MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Guido, the only part of WP:3RR that mentions tags is when it says: "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt." (emphasis mine). For someone who keeps screaming for everyone else to read the policy, you need to read the policy. Mango juice^talk 03:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I screaming, Mangojuice?

What I read is that 'legitimate' pertains to both 'content changes' and 'adding or removing tags', because that is the only interpretation that makes sense and is consistent with the definition of editwarring. WP:3RR is a rule on editwarring, and if there is no editwarring, the rule cannot apply. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, you weren't screaming, but you have repeatedly implied that the admins don't understand the policy and you do when it is most definitely the other way around. If you want to stay clear of blocks like this in the future (and I hope you do, because if you don't, indefinite blocks will come.. in fact this is probably your last chance) then either you have to modify your understanding of edit warring and the 3RR rule to fit Wikipedia's administration's understanding, or you have to adopt rules that will steer you clear of violations regardless. If you prefer the latter, I would suggest that you voluntarily confine yourself to 1 reverts or undos of any kind per page per day with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever. No exceptions, because you have misunderstood what exceptions are. 1 per day instead of 3, just in case you accidentally lose count or think an edit is not a revert when an admin does think so, and because you can never be accused of trying to skirt the rules if you stay well below the maximum. Mango juice^talk 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for arguments why my interpretation of the rules would be wrong. What edit by me was an attempt to win a content dispute by force? If I am wrong, there is no point trying to edit, because the opposing side will simply keep deleting all my contributions and keep avoiding dispute resolution.

I do not care much for this attitude of Wikipedia admins who assume that just because they are an admin, they are an authority on the interpretation of policy, and everybody else needs to shut up. You do not become a policy expert by becoming an admin, but by designing and tuning policies. In that, I have a vast experience (and for the record, while I am an ordinary user here, I have held numerous admin and bureaucrat positions elsewhere for a great many years).

If you are an expert on policy, you should be able to explain your interpretation. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with regard to the issue at hand: this is not the first time that the vandalist nature of tag removal has come up. It is even discussed on the talk page of WP:3RR itself here, where my interpretation is fully supported. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to become an admin without understanding policy. Meanwhile, the exceptions from WP:3RR are very narrow. Simply being correct isn't one of them. This [2] for example is clearly not an exception. Nor was it marked "rv" in the edit summary, as it should have been William M. Connolley (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that being correct is an exception. Otherwise, I would be reverting all over Wikipedia all day long, since obviously only I am ever right...

What I do claim is that:

Restoring illegitimately removed dispute tags is an exception. And, more generally:
WP:3RR does not apply if there is no editwarring. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of your point (2). If the text has been reverted back-and-forth 4 times in a day, then its hard to see how there can't have been edit warring. Regardless, you're wrong: read WP:3RR: the text is about reverts, not edit warring. Admins may, in exceptional circumstances, choose to make exceptions for lots-of-reverts-but-not-edit-warring, but you'd be very unwise to bet on it. As to (1), you're wrong. There is no exception for tags, nor is there really any concept of "illegitimate" in this sense. If someone has really been removing tags "illegitimately", then you should seek to have them blocked/whatever under whatever "law" they have broken. But you still can't revert for free. The only exceptions are blatant vandalism and icky BLP type stuff William M. Connolley (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policy. Nowhere does it say that these are the only exceptions. WP:3RR starts with: The three-revert rule (often referred to as 3RR) is a policy used to prevent edit warring. I ask again: what edit by me was an attempt to win a content dispute by force? Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. I haven't done anything of the sort, ever. Therefore, WP:3RR does not apply to my edits. Now while the opposing side have broken numerous policies, I have no wish to see them blocked. Blocks do not resolve content disputes and should not be used to silence the opposition. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of the tag on the article itself is part of the content of the article. Thus, the inclusion of the tag itself has, in this case, become a content dispute that your multiple reverts were an attempt to win by brute force. For instance the {{refimprove}} tag adds text that says that the article needs additional citations to verify the material. Other editors viewed that as false, and removed the tag, and yet you reverted. I don't know what point you were trying to make about the text, but the insistence on the tag is also an attempt to force that issue, by insisting on its legitimacy forcefully in order to demand concession or at least compromise. So all of your reverts were (1) confrontational and (2) used forcefully in a content dispute. Mango juice^talk 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not return the refimprove tag when it was claimed that there was no need to add references. But you are missing the point here: tags are not added to win a content dispute, they are added to indicate their existence. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undent. I would like to just make a comment, I hope I am not out of place stating things here. Guido, I came to the article and said something after the reverts of the tags were at there peak. I posted to the talk page when I saw this at the article, [3] (if you click the link you will see the article filled with citation needed tags and so forth) which was a definite way for you to make a WP:POINT and I said so. You say that you weren't using the tags to force an issue but to me, and obviously others at the page, have disagreed. You were definitely pushing, and pushing hard to make your point about what you feel is needed in this article. Now I understand your passionate about all of this. I too have a strong POV about the Crohn's disease article and other related articles. But the difference is when I go to any of the articles I feel so strongly about, I post a note to another editor I trust to check me, to make sure that I am being true to the article and not to myself only. I think you need to try to remember that with such strong feelings about this subject you need to listen to others even harder, which is not an easy thing to do at all. Articles are supposed to be about knowledge so that the reader understands the article content but from what I have understood from you is that you want truth and medical opinions in so that the patient's can get the proper care needed. This is not what Wikipedia is for and I am sure you know this but you do comment about this quite a few times about how the patient needs to know the true verses false information. Well I know, as you do, that the information has to be given in WP:RS and the slew of other policies that we use to build an article. Maybe your strong POV on this subject is not allowing you to hear other opinions so maybe you should think about editing other articles and leave these articles to others with less of a vested interest. Of course this is just my opinion on things here and I hope you understand what it is I am trying to say here. Thank you for listening anyways, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Crohnie.

I have not reverted the removal of my inline tags, even though they were justified. They were not placed to make a point, but to indicate which statements lack sources; I was asked to do so on the talk page. Since there are an awful lot of such statements in the current version of the article, it is better to use an article tag, and the OR tag is probably best.

In my opinion, the fact that I am asking for dispute resolution shows that I am willing to listen to others. I have not seen equal willingness from Retro1Simone.

While I have a personal view on the topic, I have not written a letter about it so far, and do not intend to. I am here in my capacity as a scientist only, and always back up my edits and my statements with sources.

Your suggestion to ask another, trusted editor for checking is sound. My problem with it is that I know of no such editor. Others - here and elsewhere - come to me to check their thoughts on ME/CFS.

As to what Wikipedia, is for, I think that we are in agreement. Wikipedia is indeed not for giving medical advice or training. My concern, however, is that readers nonetheless pick up and act on what they read here, and that we therefore share the responsibility to make sure that we do not spread harmful misinformation. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RetroS1mone's accusations

Guido den Broeder has a history of disruptive editing. Guido is an activist for CFS disease and has a very fringe idea that CFS and ME are separate diseases. When Guido does not agree with some article a tag is placed without discussion and Guido fights to keep the tag even after issues are discussed and consensus reached.[4]

I have no such history, nor would that in any way be relevant.

I am not an activist for CFS.

I do not claim that CFS and ME are separate diseases.

As anyone can see on the talk page, I have always actively engaged in discussion.

No consensus has been reached, hence the tags. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do have such a "history of disruptive editing" as per your past upheld blocks for edit warring. Further this very much "would that in any way be relevant" as WP:EDITWAR policy observes "Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. Repeat offenders commonly face escalating blocks, and decreasing latitude for uncooperative behavior" David Ruben ^Talk 00:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These blocks were, however, also imposed by you. In reality, I have never been editwarring.

Past behaviour is not relevant to the question whether editwarring has occurred. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never been editwarring", 2 past blocks upheld by other admins, so you are on your own with that view. Past behaviour indeed not relevant as to whether edit warring occuring this time (i.e. true that 4 edits prior to a prior block don't get added to 2 edits now), but is relevant as to whether one should know what edit warring is (you clearly do not as you fail to accept multiple endorsements of previous blocks for this), and whether to block or not (the "blocks occur when... demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, ... or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior") and finally re issue of "face escalating blocks" David Ruben ^Talk 00:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidruben: I have on each of these occasions patiently provided explanation, to which so far no upholding admin has ever replied. Several other users have repeatedly declared not to see any editwarring on my part. So until you provide any evidence to support your view, I'll keep mine. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido's position would be easier to defend without adding policy claims that are uncitable, since policy doesn't actually say that. For instance he states above that Restoring dispute tags that were illegitimately removed is not editwarring. If it were, the rallying side could always avoid dispute resolution. Please find a citation, if you can. It is generally believed that edit warring over tags is still edit warring. The explicit language of WP:3RR#Exceptions appears to say the opposite: Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If illegitimacy were irrelevant, it would not be included in the policy text. I have already provided a citation that explains why this is so: Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. Restoration of legitimate tags is intended to resolve a content dispute, not to win it by force. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be this is not where to talk about this, but Guido starts this part by saying my accusations are not true. First like has been shown, Guido has a history of disruption and blocks, although I agree with Mangojuice Guido has alot of knowledge about this sugject and can make good contribution. 2, I am not an activist for CFS. that is not quite right see ME/CVS Vereniging Netherlands, where Guido says writes for the newsletter of this activist group. And Guido is the medeoprichter (trustee) and past voorzitter (chairman) of the group. We all know people with COI can still be good contributor but not the way Guido has been doing. And 3, I do not claim that CFS and ME are separate diseases, Guido says CFS and ME are as different as CFS and cancer on this diff.

I am sorry about some things I said to Guido in past like welcoming back from when Guido left Wikipedia a few times but it is difficult working together with people when they are calling you ignorant and saying your edits are thrashing and insulting people not discussing. Think we can do better. RetroS1mone talk 02:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is accepted. You are nonetheless still wrong on all counts and are misjudging my intentions. Please try and put yourself in my shoes. I have worked hard, with other users, to make an article of some quality, reading and discussing the sources instead of just looking at where they were published, and trying to present the actual scientific results rather than the propaganda. Then someone who does not appear to know the first thing about the topic comes along and in no time the article is reduced to a pile of falsehoods, with all kinds of essential info removed.

Wikipedia is not a game, nor an exercise in writing or in searching medline. Patients, caretakers, medical students and doctors do look for info on the www and the first thing they find about CFS is this article. Therefore, as an encyclopedic editor, you have a great responsibility.

What you put in an article has consequences in real life. If you write that Fukuda is a clinical definition, more people will not get properly diagnosed. If you leave out that patients need to be examined, e.g. Lyme, MS and heart conditions will be missed more often. If you write that no diagnostic methods exist, more people will not receive benefits or care. If you disallow an article on ME, and the literature that goes with it, more patients will not be examined for inflammation and metabolic problems, and will receive the wrong treatment. If you portray Simon Wessely as a hero, more patients will get institutionalized. Etc., etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of users currently on my side of the dispute

And if you go back in history a bit, you will find a good dozen more. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:62.69.36.100 is an ip address not a user, twelve edits
User:79.74.230.62 is an ip address not a user, five edits on CFS, answers at diff like they are User:Tishtosh20
User:MEspringal is a single purpose account like name indicates, not in this debate no edits from July
User:Tekaphor single purpose account but respects people and does not always agree with Guido
User:Tishtosh20 single purpose account with ten edits on CFS, may be User:79.72.230.62

RetroS1mone talk 02:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have just insulted five more users. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido I am not trying on insulting you or other people. You are saying you have consensus on your side, I am just saying, three of these came to Wikipedia in last weeks, two or three might be same person, IPs and Tishtosh, Tekaphor did not get in the latest debate until today and MEspringal did not edit since july. You are alone on the 3RR thing and admitting it, trying to do better is in your interest and every ones'. RetroS1mone talk 12:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that consensus is on my side. I am saying that there is a dispute, which needs to be resolved. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of users currently opposing

If you go back a bit, you will find blocking admin. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC) And also:[reply]

And the administrators that have discussed on this page. RetroS1mone talk 02:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie has, so far, not taken any sides. Fram has not discussed content at all. Jfdwolff has given mixed signals (he agreed to the NPOV tag). Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One month is excessive

Last time Guido violated the 3RR was back in May. Progressive blocking is a very poor way to handle a situation like this, and not at all appropriate. Knock some sense into him and move on, but don't use blocks to punish editors. Also, what need was there to block his ability to e-mail? Guido, if you wish to communicate outside this talk page and outside the normal unblocking lists, feel free to e-mail me directly at ned -at- nedscott.com. -- Ned Scott 05:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the unblock requests above, it appears to me that G still fails to understand 3RR and what reverts are prohibited. Which suggests he will go straight back to breaking 3RR as soon as unblocked. If he can be brought to understand his error I would be happy to support an earlier unblock William M. Connolley (talk) 07:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Scott, how do you propose to "knock some sense into him"? Whether we block him for one day, one week, or one month, he still does not recognize that he has done something wrong wrt our policies. If repeated blocking for 3RR (and other problems) doesn't knock some sense into him, why would you reduce the block and not just change it to indefinite? There comes a moment that a user becomes more of a burden than a net positive for the encyclopedia. There is a long history of problems with Guido, and no indication of improvement. What would reducing this block achieve? Fram (talk) 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of this block, then? You cannot expect me to admit to something that I did not do. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, why would we allow you to continue to edit, if many of use consider the way you are editing as often disruptive, and you don't give any indication of accepting the judgment or change of behaviour. All I see is (heavily paraphrased) "I'm blocked for no good reason, I want to be unblocked now, and I want to continue what I was doing". Since we obviously don't want you to continue in the same way, what reason would we have to unblock you now or in the future? Fram (talk) 11:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason to unblock me (not for you, you are not neutral, but for neutral admins) would be that they realize that I am not the one who is disruptive, but that I am instead following policy and seeking dispute resolution as required, where the opposing side, including you, does not react to arguments, violates all kinds of policies, and responds with insults and abuse of admin power. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you make accusations, please provide diffs. Otherwise, retract them. Fram (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just read this talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where on this talk page have I "not reacted to arguments, violated all kinds of policies, and responded with insults and abuse of admin power"? Fram (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido, no offense, but I'm not sure I agree with most of what you've been saying here. However, I stand by my comment, a one month block is very excessive. When the last 3RR violation was months ago, that is an indication that the revert warring isn't a pressing issue. Admins these days are painfully unforgiving. I have more 3RR violations than this guy does, and I'd like to think that I've learned to handle myself and grow, all without this progressive block nonsense. For most of those blocks I still stand by my claim that the block was unjustified and that I was in the right, but getting blocked, even for a few hours (since most of the blocks were undone early), is still enough to keep one from doing the same thing right away. If this only happens two or three times a year, then don't treat the situation as one continuing problem. Some of us aren't perfect, and every so often we lose our cool or our sense of judgement. Isolated incidents, similar in nature, because we're human.

If it wasn't for the fact that Guido appears to have other issues then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. He has a right to disagree with you guys when he says he feels he didn't violate the 3RR. He's read the same policy pages and has come to a different conclusion. Is this a problem? Yes, because he might do it again. Will he? I don't know, the last time it happened was months ago. If it does happen again then we can try a topical ban.

I'm trying to assume good faith here, but no matter how I look at it it seems that you guys are dishing this one month ban out so easily because of the frustration you are having with him on these other issues. -- Ned Scott 04:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off too strongly there, I just have this thing about long blocks. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned, you didn't come over too strongly at all. I've been following this as well, and I do see the same names bringing up the same old issues with Guido every time. Part of that is because Guido is persisting in editing some articles which I think he should restrain himself on, but part of it is also, I fear, because some people feel that it is OK to tally up a "rap sheet" over several months or a year and use that to eventually push for an indefinite block or ban. That sort of approach is OK in some cases, but should be applied equally. My feeling is that if the matter were fully investigated, others as well as Guido would have problems defending themselves. I also totally agree that one or two 3RR blocks in a year shouldn't be used to browbeat people into submission, or to support people's particular views on what should happen here. There is a balance to be struck between: (1) looking at a pattern of behaviour over time; and (2) treating each incident separately and letting people recover from a past incident and start afresh. I think the balance here has veered away from the latter and towards the former. I will also note that this is the fourth block that Davidruben (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has carried out on Guido. The idea of progressive blocks tend only to work if carried out by different admins. If the same admin carries out progressive blocks, then the impression is of an admin following and monitoring an editor, and, sometimes implacably, moving things towards an indefinite block on their interpretation of what is going on, when what should be happening is other admins providing independent assessments in the block log of the "progressive blocking". Looking at Guido's block log, and discounting the block by Tariqabjotu (since that led to an unblock with a summary of "not edit warring"), and discounting the legal threats blocks as a separate issue, we see that Davidruben is the only admin that has been blocking Guido over the edit warring. So my suggestion is that David step back and let other admins handle any future cases. That will give less of an impression that David is monitoring Guido. No opinion yet on the length of the current block. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my response to the previous blocks was: (a) not to repeat the same behaviour, even though I said and still say that there was nothing wrong with it, and (b) to try and improve, with success, the text of the policy that caused the misunderstanding. My response in this case will be the same: I will not do multiple reverts on tags, even though I insist that I am allowed and in fact supposed to, but instead I will try and improve the text of the 3RR policy. Blocking is totally unnecessary and serves no purpose. A simple, friendly request on my talk page by an independent admin, to indicate that there is disagreement about my interpretation of a policy, would have the same effect. My contributions to Wikipedia have, and always will be, done in good faith, I am not here to make war. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you then think that, because of your changes to policy, you would not now be blocked for the behaviour that previously resulted in your being blocked? Could you highlight those changes please, and give your reasoning, as currently I don't follow. (As to this block, it seems fairly clear cut.) Thanks, Verbal chat 15:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe that I have helped improve the wording of WP:Edit war so that specifically getting blocked for reverting bad-faith edits is now less likely.[5][6] Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is Guido that "A simple, friendly request on my talk page by an independent admin, to indicate that there is disagreement about my interpretation of a policy, would have the same effect" should not be necessary if you edited in a collaborative manner with other editors - if someone else reverts an edit, then one should pause and consider if ones own certainty on the issue should be less black/white, if several other editors revert ones actions then that alone should be pause for thought and a dive to the talk page to resolve any misunderstandings. That you continue to revert, is edit warring and grounds for a block for what is being a dick of making a point. Your blithe editing in disregard for views of other editors was the same this time as previous (albeit over tagging vs main text, but disregarding multiple other editors nevertheless some of whom are admins who probably do know policy very well).

As for Ned Scott & Carcharoth views of "one or two 3RR blocks in a year" being acceptable, I beg to differ. From the official policy of Wikipedia:Edit war:

"Editors who edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely."

"If long term incorrigible edit warriors do not lose their edit warring interests and leave on their own, Wikipedia eventually bans them or prevents them from editing or reverting in their areas of conflict."

So repeated 3RR is not acceptable: in a nutshell there comes a point where the editor is gaming the system if they feel that a certain amount of "mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content" will be permitted. Now I make no claim of how many 3RR might reach such a point, nor over what time frame, but the policy is established that repeated edit warring is unacceptable.

As for my involvement here, I watch the article pages, not Guido specifically (except now during the block duration), and CFS article came up with fairly clear history of one editor reverting against several others. In each of the previous blocks Guido sensibly sought review of the blocks and these were rejected, as such they nolonger are merely my blocking but established community supported blocks. Indeed I am rather grateful from a purely personal perpective that the unblock requests were made, as they then allow for my own reassurance over my admin action. Finally as for duration, WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR do give a clear indication for blocks escalating for repeated offenses as the disruption to the project increases and the editor in question needs think ever deeper about how to better contribute (not least how not to get blocked again). The 2nd of the current unblock rejections did also specifically comment on the duration of the block too. As though current discussion focussing more on the block's duration rather than the fact of the block and I'll take no offense from any disagreement of my admin actions by other more experienced admins, so to be quite open here if any other admin feels the block duration should be adjusted (or indeed unblock ahead of current cutoff for reasurance given in this talk page) - feel free to act - there is no need here to seek my specific prior agreement, i.e. you wont be rolling a WP:WHEEL over my admin toes :-) David Ruben ^Talk 18:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would need two full talk pages to list everything that is wrong with your post, so I'll be brief. You, Davidruben, oppose my position contentwise, and simultaneously you, Davidruben, keep blocking me in you capacity as an admin. You have also revoked my email privileges so that I cannot get into contact with any of the users on my side of the dispute, who know nothing of this ridiculous block, and you editwar on my talk page. So who is gaming the system here?

You have been asked to withdraw numerous times. Do that now, and do not come back. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on one side of a content dispute should not abuse their admin powers to silence the opposition. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you are not sure whether the length of your block was right, you should voluntarily reduce it. That will allow most people to move on from this. And please, if this sort of thing happens again in six months time, please try and treat it as a new incident, not part four of an ongoing saga. A true ongoing saga would be one where someone is edit warring every week. Cases where edit warring takes places a few times a year, with OK editing at other times, are more amenable to a request for comment (a new one, though, not a restarting or rehashing of the previous RfC). Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the block. But the length does seem excessive. More talk here is pointless: GdB isn't going to admit fault, and there is no point asking. But hopefully he has learned that similar behaviour will lead to future blocks. He has no hope of changing 3RR policy but won't do him any harm to try. Meantime, is "This user has moved to Wikisage" true? If not, remove it. If true, why is he still talking? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, admitting fault is not a requirement to lift a block. I have already declared that I do not intend to repeat my action. IMHO that should suffice, at least I believe that blocks on en:Wikipedia are not meant as punishment (another wikipedia project has recently changed their rules and now does use blocks as punishment, so I need some reassurance).

That said, I have plenty of other things to do at the moment, so a short block would not inconvenience me all that much and perhaps allow other users some time to think. For the sake of harmony, I would be OK with a reduction to one week. How does that sound to you? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, although I may be wrong, that blocks are meant to be educational - to show that what the editor did isn't tolerated by the community. Verbal chat 15:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and this block should not be lifted early if it hasn't served its educational purpose. Guido, if you aren't willing to (1) admit fault, (2) call your actions a mistake or a misunderstanding, or at least (3) promise not to continue, I think an unblock would be a mistake. Mango juice^talk 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mangojuice, I have already promised to discontinue. My goal will be to help improve the wording of WP:3RR so that further misunderstandings can be avoided. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Guido agreeing to a voluntary topic ban from Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? He should also abstain from trying to change the wording of any policies under which he was previously blocked. Wanting to change the policy is the farthest possible from admitting he was correctly blocked in the past. (Maybe he would prefer wording under which restoring tags is exempt from 3RR?) EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I am not seeking to change the policy, although that would be my good right. My position is that the policy is correct but needs better wording to avoid misinterpretation. This is a constructive effort on my part. We were about to come to a good conclusion here and now you re-escalate? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Guido has a history of disciplinary action, but a month ban seems excessive for something like breaking 3RR for tag using during a live dispute at the talkpage about the content of the article, and it sounds like a pseudo-resolution. I personally don't bother much with tags, but obviously there is some dispute going on so why aggressively remove the tags when the dispute is still actually occurring? (regardless of the likely outcome). The characteristic of the CFS article is that it's in a perpetual long-term dispute with regular "flare-ups". Another problem is that some contributors/observers of the CFS article are considerably impaired by the illness themselves, so a few days of silence might look like consensus/resolution to those living in the Wikipedia fast-lane. - Tekaphor (TALK) 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Thanks, Tekaphor. As the talk page of the article indicates:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is closed. We are waiting for Davidruben to consider Carcharoth's request. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments

Removing some comments, that are civil, from a discussion, but leaving the discussion (plus some changes) doesn't seem to be very civil. It would seem better to remove the whole discussion rather than selected parts. Yours, Verbal chat 19:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all responses to the comments, so the flow of communication was not broken. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidruben's involvement with the content dispute

refactored Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At what point was DavidRuben involved in a content dispute with you, Guido? I looked back on the history of chronic fatigue syndrome, the page that ostensibly the 3RR was on [7], and the last time DavidRuben edited the page was in April, 2007. The last appearance on the talk page was in December, and endorsed waiting for Guido's block at the time to expire before making substantial edits to the page. Hardly a man mad with his own power. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If what you say is correct, WLU, then David does not have any vested interest in monitoring the CFS article and should be able to take it off his watchlist with a clear conscience. If, on the other hand, David keeps monitoring the CFS article, and builds up a further history of being one of the admins (I have no idea how many other admins are watching the CFS page) taking actions around this page, then the impression will be there of being involved. My personal view is that if an admin wants to stick around on a page for the long haul, they need to either take their admin hat off, or be very clear what their history of admin actions is, and to record it somewhere publically visible. The ideal (often difficult because of a shortage of willing admins, and please don't use this as an excuse to maintain the status quo) is to have admins rotating in and out of such controversial articles, and handing the baton on as needed. The same is true of editors, but that is far more difficult to implement. Admins, at least, should be self-aware enough to rise above things and recognise whether they should stay with an article or move on. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David didn't report the page on 3RR/N, he blocked based on RetroS1more's report. I would assume David became involved because he monitors the 3RR page rather than CFS, but you'd have to ask him. But since David hasn't edited main or talk page in about 6 months, and not in the dispute that led to the 3RR violation and report, I don't think it could really be argued that he's using his admin tools to win a content dispute, which is why I brought it up. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that Davidruben's vested interest in the dispute it is not easy to find, WLU, is that you, WLU, have ~~hidden~~ archived it.

David's strong partiality in this dispute can be found here, where he vehemently opposes the creation of an article on myalgic encephalomyelitis:

Redirect ... ME & CFS both describe the same condition and Wikipedia should not fork information...
...that might suggest that this article be merged into Neurasthenia! ...
... It would be similar to claiming US vs British spelling of hypokalemia vs hypokalaemia never being used in the same article (which is true) means that they are different conditions...

etc. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest suggestion

Guido, The 3RR discussion is making clear, alot of people have problems with your editing additionally to the 3RR problem. I really do respect your knowledge about CFS or ME or what you want to call it and I think you can contribute to, and I think alot of the problems are coming from your COI, so I am suggesting in good faith you might look at WP:COI and it's suggestion about how to editing when you have a COI. Just a suggestion, tho, but it might help you. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 02:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Retro1Simone, I am well aware of WP:COI, but on the other hand this is where my interest lies and where I feel I can make a real contribution. I believe I have always been very careful in my editing of the CFS article text; leastwise people have generally indicated that they were happy with my edits. I am also on a voluntary 1RR for non-vandalism reverts and that seems to work well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 12:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CFS and ME

May I ask a question please? Are you saying that Chronic fatigue syndrome and ME are being confused like Inflammatory bowel disease and Irritable bowel syndrome are sometimes confused as the same? I am having a bit of trouble with you saying that the two are different because the research I looked at uses the term as it is interchangable, ie: the same, with CFS the main terminology used in the WP:Reliable sources. If I was to choose the name for this I would call it CFS since this it the one used by the reliable sources supplied. I will admit that I am not as knowledgable about it as you are since you live with it. But as long as the sources are followed that is what all editor should go by to build an accurate article. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crohnie, a comparison that I often make is with Dementia and Alzheimer. The first describes some symptoms, the second is the actual disease. They both have an article on Wikipedia and nobody has a problem with that. There is no controversy, and neither is there between ME and CFS, they just denote two different (albeit related) things. Simply following the terminology of the sources is indeed the way to go. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...except no-one in the mainstream research and medical establishment takes this viewpoint. They treat ME and CFS as completely interchangeable. That comparison between Alzheimer's disease and dementia is original research since CFS is the name used to describe the condition. Most agree it's not a good name, but I believe they're holding off re-naming it until its etiology is discovered. Alzheimer's and dementia have two different pages because one is clearly a subset or sequelae of the other; a more apt comparison would be between fatige and chronic fatigue syndrome, and no-one is arguing for those pages to be merged. If Guido had a source that made this comparison, a reliable one stating that this is one of the objections to the name, that may be able to go into the page but lacking a good source it's pretty obvious OR and is inappropriate speculation. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is with who claims that two things are the same. Show me one source that says "we have investigated the matter, and came to the conclusion that they are equal". Yes, CFS is the name of the condition it describes, but ME is not. Your conclusion that they are used interchangeably is exactly that: your conclusion. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section has a number of sources that clearly state the two names are used interchangeably to refer to the same condition (i.e. CFS, also known as ME is used verbatim in various sources from 2008). I've yet to see a recent medical source that comprehensively reviews the two conditions and states that they are sufficiently different to require different pages. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these examples contains research into the matter, and 'known as' is still rather vague, while by far the most publications do not use that phrase at all. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are de facto treated as one disease with two synonymic names, and no one can even be bothered to research if they might just happen to be two diseases instead of one. The lack of such research is not supporting your position at all. Fram (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And your evidence for this is?

They are not different diseases. One is a disease, the other is a working case definition. ME is inflammation of the central nervous system. Which CFS definition says the same? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, interesting comparison (IBD vs IBS). While most researchers/authorities phrase ME and CFS as synonymous, this seems based on educated opinion rather than actual scientific research, as Guido implied. However, last time this issue was raised, it was concluded that there was insufficient consensus to split the article. The older ME papers have been overpopulated by the newer CFS papers and paradigm. Perhaps there needs to be a subsection in the CFS article which compares or describes the differences between CFS criteria and ME criteria, or at least the research which suggests subtypes and how different criteria select patients with different patterns of symptoms and disability. - Tekaphor (TALK) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King: "Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see."

User:Guido den Broeder/Navigation Footer