Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Guido den Broeder

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC).

---

• Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Guido den Broeder continues to edit in ways which violate WP:COI, despite numerous discussions and requests to stop this.

IMPORTANT NOTE: Please, please, pretty please, restrict this RfC/U only to his behaviour on the English Wikipedia, and leave out any disputes he may or may not have on other Wikipedias.

The desired outcome is that Guido den Broeder would stop making contributions where he may be perceived as having a conflict of interest. Guido den Broeder should not link to his own books, publications by his company, websites of organisations he is involved with, or make any other edits which could reasonably be interpreted as creating a conflict of interest. Guido den Broeder is encouraged to suggest any such edits on the talk pages of the articles involved, where other editors can judge the suggestions on their merits. When in doubt, Guido den Broeder is urged to err on the side of caution and not to wikilawyer.

Guido den Broeder has had COI problems on the English Wikipedia for quite a while now, and was completely aware of the guidelines for months before this dispute. In the past month, at least four editors (including three admins) have explained to him that he should execrise caution when a COI might be perceived, and that the best way to do so would be to suggest such edits on the talk page of articles instead of making them directly. Guido den Broeder has ignored this advice, going so far as to ask for actions to be taken against one of the admins involved, and wikilawyering all the way. While some (but not all) of his COI edits may be useful, and while he has been followed by some Dutch Wikipedians (importing a dispute from there to here), this does not excuse his behaviour or his refusal to follow the advice of a number of people to act according to the COI and EL guidelines (well, he does seem to believe that he follows those guidelines, but most other editors disagree).

1. [1] (evidence that the problems with COI edits have been pointed out to him repeatedly (even much earlier than this), and that Guido den Broeder reacts badly to friendly advice)
2. [2] (it goes on, taking offense when someone points out that because of the COI, his edits are more questionable)
3. [3] (admin Scarian tries to explain to Guido den Broeder why adding his own books violates COI, but Guido den Broeder starts wikilawyering and knows our policies and guidelines better than anyone else: see e.g. [4] as an example)
4. [5] (at the COI/N, Guido asks that "appropriate action" is taken against Scarian)
5. [6] (when he doesn't get what he wants and another uninvolved admin points this out to him, Guido leaves the discussion)
6. [7] (another admin, EdJohnston, steps in to make basically the same suggestion I make above (desired outcome), but this is unacceptable for Guido den Broeder, who prefers a "sensible discussion"...)
7. [8] (user WLU suggests the same, but is not heeded either)
8. [9] (Wikilawyering over a COI template)
9. [10] (Starting an ArbCom when an article ban is started to keep him from COI edits)
10. [11] (reinserting own website with misleading edit summary) (edit summary since explained, no problem there)
11. [12] (reinserting the same link again, despite spam warning on user talk page)
12. [13] (wikilawyering over the removal of a link to a website he maintains)
13. [14] (reinserting his own books)
14. [15] (violates the purpose of userfication by keeping an article alive in userspace with only very minor modifications over the course of five months: Guido den Broeder has a clear COI on this article anyway)
15. [16] Creating a page for an organization which he is the treasurer of [17], [18]
16. [19], [20], [21] - misunderstanding WP:RS
17. [22], [23], [24] & [25] from 1st May. Aside from WP:3RR breach resulting in block, these edits are repeated additions of reference to his own work, as such COI-violation because previously been warned & cautioned at WP:COI/N not to do so.
18. [26] makes totally misrepresented claims, to the general administratorship, as to statement/ackowledgments of others (rebuttal thus)

1. WP:COI
2. WP:EL
3. WP:LAWYER
4. WP:CIVIL
5. WP:RS

1. COIN posting
2. Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive408#Editor COI and COI/N proposal + review my actions: note that Jossi has, there again, cautioned Guido den Broeder to act with extreme caution
4. User:Scarian/Med1
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive71#User:GijsvdL reported by User:Guido den Broeder (Result: See result) (has some discussion of his COI edits on en.wikipedia amidst a lot of more or less unrelated problems)
6. Talk:Types_of_unemployment#Copyvio_notice - an ongoing discussion about specific sourcing on this page
7. Talk:Vereniging_Basisinkomen#COI
8. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request to lift article ban for some review of issues at talk & WP:COI/N

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Fram (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. WLU (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. David Ruben ^Talk 01:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{Users who tried and successfully resolved part of the dispute}

1. Carcharoth (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC) (see here)[reply]
2. SunCreator (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (see here)[reply]

1. Athaenara (talk · contribs) 08:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I consider this request frivolous and forumshopping since we have just closed a similar procedure with the conclusion that no action is warranted. Several opposing users (all of them Dutch) have been warned for stalking, and/or for discussing perceived nl:Wikipedia events on article talk pages. All that has happened since is that requesting user randomly removed a link to a website that had been there for ages. I asked for and received advice before undoing the removal, where the advice was that the site's language should be indicated; I have followed this advice. I would like to stress again that I have not violated WP:COI in a single instance and that I am editing with great caution, as always. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AGF
• WP:COS
• WP:HAR
• WP:SPIDER
• WP:Wikilawyering#Misuse_of_the_term

• Attribution (copyright)

I contest that certifying users 'who tried and failed' have tried to resolve this dispute. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Users not to forumshop and start or join a new procedure right after they got a bad review for the last one. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Users from nl:Wikipedia not to stalk me.
3. Users to understand what WP:COI is and what it is not.
4. Admins not to use blocks as punishment. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noting this here, because I think the placement of the links to Talk:Melody Amber chess tournament#Books and User:Scarian/Med1 is misrepresenting what happened at those two venues. The whole situation at Melody Amber chess tournament was, in my opinion, a misunderstanding (and one that was exacerbated at the mediation). As I said on the talk page:

"There is a difference between describing the book in a section called "Tournament books" and using the books as references for the article. The former appears in Melody Amber chess tournament#Tournament books. The latter appears in Melody Amber chess tournament#References (either directly or using inline citations). I'm OK with the former, but I personally would not do the latter until I can get hold of copies of the books myself and cross-check the information in them with other sources."

Adding a fact to an article (that some books have been published about the tournament) is different from using a book as a reference. Part of the misunderstanding, I think, arose from people not understanding what a "tournament book" is. It is, effectively, a book produced after a chess tournament finishes, giving all or most of the games, the results, and some analysis and background. Articles about tournaments should list the books produced about that tournament (for an example, see Deep Blue versus Garry Kasparov and the three books listed at the end there. It was also worrying to see that those waving the COI flag have failed to see that I, a completely uninvolved editor, had re-added the books, thus removing the stigma of COI from the edit). COI does not mean automatic removal. It means asking someone uninvolved to make the judgment, which in this case was me. There is nothing wrong with an author saying "are you aware of this book", and an editor going "no I wasn't, but thanks for telling us, we will note this in the article (for further reading at the moment) and consider using it as a reference". To have other editors disrupting that process with COI claims is, well, disruptive. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Although I would add that this whole situation might have been less overblown if Guido had taken a less combative tone in response to potential COI issues.[reply]
2. SunCreator (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I guess I can sign here even though I haven't followed the other disputed topics too much. --Jisis (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Erik Warmelink (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have noticed that Guido den Broeder(GDB) normally does respond fast(or very fast within a few minutes) with often unexpected or unpredictable replies to questions/discussions. I'm pointing this out for three reasons because:
   a) it would be easy to overlook this while reading the contents of various historical edits.
   b) fast responses normally shows a clever thinker and because in GDB's case they have a degree of unpredictable, which can be quite unsettling to others, especially when communicating in some sort of disagreement.
   c) in my experience a fast person normally expects others to respond the same. With GDB he can at times go on to assume because no one has responded 'fast' to disagree with him, that they either agree with him or at least not disagree with him.
   Here is one such example [27] at '14:57' later the same day at '20:48' he added this which then lead to a bit of edit waring, where GDB thought he was in the correct because there was no disagreement on the talk page. Less then 6 hours had elapsed (in my view to quick). I think there will be other such cases.
2. Not at any time in my communications with Guido den Broeder have I sensed any 'wikilawyering', only someone who is trying to explain a different point of view in what is not a first language for him.
3. With regards to 'Evidence of disputed behavior' part 12. I tried to resolve a part of that dispute here.

Specifically these edits. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] and importantly this next edit [36] which in my view was a successful result.

And once you have read the above edits and notice that I then did regretfully make the following edit [37]. It was - my mistake - because I added (In Dutch) to the wrong link, Doh! You may then understand why this 'Evidence of disputed behavior part 10' edit was done in good faith. SunCreator (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guido is being a lot more cautious than users usually are in truly problematic cases of conflict of interest. But he's not being cautious enough. Take, for instance, his most recent block. From the perspective of myself and the blocking admin, Guido was reinserting a source that others had expressed some concern over with respect to WP:COI and was revert-warring in doing so. From Guido's perspective, he was merely reinserting a source that had been questioned when there was consensus to do so. Guido needs to add the following to his repertoire of handling COI issues in general. If you want to make a change that might be regarded as a conflict of interest:

1. Start with discussion. Propose the change and argue for it, and let others decide. Do not make the change yourself.
2. If the change has already been made once, the same rules apply.
3. In particular, if consensus exists for your change, point it out, but you should leave implementing the change up to others.
4. Don't ever edit war over these changes. (See rule 1, but edit warring is even worse.)
5. WP:AGF: Do not accuse others of "vandalism" when they object to your conflict of interest. Understand that this is a legitimate interest.

Second, Guido does not understand what vandalism is. Vandalism is deliberately malicious sabotage. Vandalism is not slang for changes against consensus or changes you personally don't approve of. Using the term "vandalism" is inherently an assumption of bad faith.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. WLU (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been involved with the chess etc. discussions that initiated this RFC, but the problem seems to be continuing with another article, Da Costa's syndrome, a historical syndrome with similarities to later ME-type syndromes. In my view, Guido den Broeder has been pushing a POV in discussions with a COI relating to his ME/CFS advocacy with Vereniging Basisinkomen, in trying to edge out psychological explanations from a picture that includes anxiety disorder among possible diagnoses. For example:

• [38] ("Surely this is a physical disorder, not psychosomatic")
• [39] ("the cause must be some kind of poisoning or pollution") - OR not mentioned in any source.
• [40] ("I'd rather expect particles from gunfire to be a probable cause") - OR again.
• [41] - removing reliable source to PTSD theory as "non-notable PTSD source making unsourced claims".

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Editor blocked.

(To clarify: the block was for undertaking legal action against an editor; if the block is lifted, it might be appropriate to re-open this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.