Requests for comment/Dutch Wikipedia - unblock request

The following request for comments is closed. Not producing much that is useful. Not seeing any parties working through any differences.

---

Case description

A while ago I was blocked indefinitely on nl:Wikipedia when I initiated legal action against another Dutch wikipedian. The legal action has since been concluded to my satisfaction.

According to policy, the block should now be lifted, but this has not been done.

I have no choice but to raise this issue here because all ways to do this on nl:Wikipedia have been denied to me.

• Arbcom requests (sent by email or made by other users) do not get handled, if they get posted at all.
• My email privileges and IP address have been blocked for reasons unknown.
• The few individual nl:admins that I can reach elsewhere only point me to the disfunctional nl:Arbcom.
• User talk pages on nl cannot be edited by blocked users.
• I have been banned from all relevant Dutch IRC channels by or on the request of opposing user in concluded legal conflict.

Please note that while my nl:block log looks rather full, previous blocks have always been overturned when the community had a chance. I have been blocked for: archiving, correcting a typo in my name, making a physical threat (false accusation, block lifted), sockpuppetry (false accusation, block lifted), refusing to meet opposing user 1:1 in corporeal life, and several times for reasons entirely unknown to me. Recently, nl:rules have been changed so that the community is no longer heard. I am not aware of even a single occasion where I overstepped a line.

Note that I have no desire to work on nl:Wikipedia articles, as I have moved to a new project. But I do want to put my user space in order and to contact some friends.

nl:Overleg_gebruiker:Guido_den_Broeder Guido den Broeder 17:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Meta has no special authority over other wikis. I think your best bet is to find an advocate on the nl:wp, and work the nl:wp processes. Perhaps a polite request for some aid on Metapub or Meta:Babel might be worth trying. If no one that speaks nl is willing to be your advocate, that suggests that perhaps you've exhausted all avenues. Other than that I don't have any ideas, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I rather suspected this was the case (although the kinda vague note "It can also be used for conflicts in regards to other Wikimedia projects if discussion on the relevant project has not been successful" at the top of the RfC page did make me wonder, and may have been the reason you posted here?). Lar is very experienced in this sort of stuff, so that combined with my initial suspicion that discussion here is unlikely to result in resolution on the dutch wiki, tends to make me think the advice offered is probably the best way forward... Presumably you've tried to initiate an unblock discussion stating clearly your desire to only edit in your userspace (and possibly the userspace of wiki friends?) - in order to tie up a few loose ends? - good luck in finding some dutch help (I've plenty of dutch courage, but little ability in the language!) :-) Privatemusings 01:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please understand: I am unable to start an unblock discussion at nl:Wikipedia, or work any nl:wp processes, because all roads for communication have been closed to me. I.e. I have not used any existing avenues, let alone exhausted them. The problem is that I can't access these avenues, and some avenues have broken down. Guido den Broeder 08:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

@Privatemusings: Well, yes, one expects that that note sits there for a reason. If not, the page should be removed. But should it not be so that if a project acts against foundation policy, one should be able to seek help at meta? Guido den Broeder 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Two points: 1) I'll repeat my suggestion, try to find someone at nl:wp who will advocate your case for you. Have you tried that? I could suggest a few names but not until you yourself try... if you try and cannot find anyone, that suggests that your case may not be quite as one sidedly unfair as you might think. 2) How is nl:wp in violation of foundation policy? That is a rather grave charge. If it's true it is something that is appropriate to at least discuss here. Please be specific in elaborating exactly how they are. ++Lar: t/c 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked by Lar to give some feedback on this case. As such, first an overview of the problems around Guido (both problems for and problems with him) which led to the current situation:

August 2007:

• A case against Guido was brought before the arbcom, regarding self promotion (in the form of creating an article about himself and adding a book written by himself on various articles, as well as edit warring and editing other people's comments.

September 2007:

• In their decision, the arbcom decided to appoint Oscar as mentor over Guido, with various special rights and obligations.

October 2007:

• Guido asks in an arbcom case for the mentorate to be ended. The arbcom refuses to take the case.

no specific time:

• As far as I can judge, the mentorate did not work as it should, with Guido and Oscar yelling at each other, both calling the other one unresponsive, and Oscar blocking Guido several times. Which or both of them is to blame, I do not know.

April-May 2008:

• Tjako (1 time) and Guido (3 times) submit cases against Oscar to the arbcom, related with Oscar's conflict with Guido

3 July:

• Guido writes "Oscar heeft echter zijn taken nooit uitgevoerd maar ging heel andere dingen doen, zoals willekeurige blokkeringen uitdelen en met beledigingen strooien, terwijl hij ondertussen elke communicatie met mij onmogelijk maakte." ("Oscar never did his duty, but went on to do wholly different things, like blocking me at random and insulting me while in the meantime making all communication with me impossible")
• After this Oscar blocked Guido for three months, reason "Consistently refusing any cooperation and falsely accusing his mentor"
• Guido in an email to the arbcom asks for the block to be ended
• In an email to Oscar (of which I do not know the content), Cc: to arbcom, Guido threatens judicial steps against Oscar.
• The arbcom decides, based on this threat to make Guido's block indefinite. This is considered by them to be a decision on Guido's latest request.

July (later):

• The arbcom closes the cases against Oscar without having ruled on them because "after the recent developments they are outdated"

August:

• Oscar submits a case to the arbcom, because Guido is claimed by him to repeatedly lie in statements against and about him.
• Guido sends a mail to various admins saying that the judicial procedures have been ended and asking to be unblocked. After some deliberation between the various admins, we decide that the case should be left to the arbcom.
• Apparently Guido sends a similar mail to the arbcom; however, upto now the arbcom has given no sign that they actually received it.
• The arbcom accepts Oscar's case

Guido is right to the extend that the Dutch admins indeed refer him to the arbcom, and that the Dutch arbcom is notoriously slow. What I do not agree with is his statement that according to policy his block should now be lifted - there is still the previous 3 month block to be reckoned with, for one thing. - Andre Engels 14:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some corrections to the above

• A case against Guido was brought before the arbcom, regarding self promotion (in the form of creating an article about himself and adding a book written by himself on various articles, as well as edit warring and editing other people's comments.

This is where the misunderstandings start. What was brought forward, was a concern about other users' reactions to some of my edits, after the ring leader of these users refused mediation. I had not edited other people's comments anywhere, I did not have a habit of putting some book by me everywhere, nor had I done anything else that was forbidden. There was an article about me at the time, but that was not written by me.

• In their decision, the arbcom decided to appoint Oscar as mentor over Guido, with various special rights and obligations.

The mentorship was a mutual agreement, arrived at in IRC discussions between me and the nl:Arbcom, intended to keep said other users away from me. Oscar did not have any special rights, he had a specific task. What happened next was that he refused to perform that task, and instead assigned to himself absolute power over me, for which he had no mandate whatsoever.

• Guido asks in an arbcom case for the mentorate to be ended. The arbcom refuses to take the case.

What actually happened was that I cancelled the agreement, and left nl:Wikipedia for half a year because I kept being stalked by said other users.

• Tjako (1 time) and Guido (3 times) submit cases against Oscar to the arbcom, related with Oscar's conflict with Guido

The cases I submitted to the Arbcom dealt a.o. with violations of my author rights, and numerous false accusations, including by Oscar, of crimes that I had allegedly committed, such as spamming his mailbox. Nothing was ever done with my complaints, despite other users speaking up on my behalf. The false accusations of crimes committed and the violations of author rights are still there.

• In an email to Oscar (of which I do not know the content), Cc: to arbcom, Guido threatens judicial steps against Oscar.

No threat was ever sent by me. Guido den Broeder 16:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Response to Andre Engels

• What I do not agree with is his statement that according to policy his block should now be lifted - there is still the previous 3 month block to be reckoned with, for one thing.

Once the indefinite block has been lifted, my unblock request for this overlapping 3-months block needs to be addressed. To begin with, Oscar had no mandate to issue such a block. Second, the reason for this block is obscure. Oscar had demanded by email that I should cooperate with him by meeting him 1:1 in corporeal life. Of course I refused to meet someone in person who was behaving so aggressively towards me, and instead tried to point out some things to him on his talk page, together with several other users. Then I found myself blocked for not cooperating. I don't think it is in accordance with foundation policy to block a user for refusing to meet someone on the streets, so naturally my position is that this block should also be lifted. Guido den Broeder 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, all that I intend to do is to put my user space in order, email some friends and leave a note that I have left the project. I really don't think that that is too much to ask. I have no desire left to contribute to nl:Wikipedia; I consider the project dead and unsalvageable. Guido den Broeder 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Reactions to the above corrections and response

• This is where the misunderstandings start. What was brought forward, was a concern about other users' reactions to some of my edits, after the ring leader of these users refused mediation. I had not edited other people's comments anywhere, I did not have a habit of putting some book by me everywhere, nor had I done anything else that was forbidden. There was an article about me at the time, but that was not written by me.
  • Instead of going into the reasons for the arbcom case myself, I just will write down the arbcom request, then anyone can make out for themselves whether it is Guido's behaviour or other people's reactions to them that are under consideration in the first place.
  • As for the article about you: It had been created 3 times, deleted 4 times. The first time it was created by you. The second time by a new user in almost the same form - I have to conclude this was a meat puppet. The third time it was 'a rewrite by [submitter] of information coming from Guido den Broeder'. Thus, that the third version was not written by you is true, but nothing more than a technicality. - Andre Engels 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom request:

Guido den Broeder is een gewaardeerde gebruiker, die vooral op de gebieden schaken en economie veel kennis heeft. Echter, de afgelopen weken is de gemeenschap keer op keer lastiggevallen met een affaire waarbij Guido een artikel over zichzelf aanmaakte (of door anderen aan liet maken), en in andere artikelen links naar zijn artikel plaatste (door bijvoorbeeld een referentie te plaatsen naar een boek dat hij geschreven heeft, en de auteur daarbij te vermelden). Vooral Mig de Jong en JacobH hebben hier fel op gereageerd, en al vele artikelen zijn beveiligd geweest door de editwars over de link naar Guido's artikel en verwijzing naar hemzelf.

Ook heeft Guido, ondanks de dringende verzoeken van vele anderen om dit niet te doen, herhaaldelijk commentaar verwijderd van zijn overleg, of het in een zogenaamde "prullenbak" gegooid. Hier plaatste hij al het commentaar dat negatief voor hem was, vaak vlak nadat het gepost was. Hij had ook een lijstje met gebruikers die niet op zijn overleg mochten posten, waaronder vele gewaardeerde gebruikers (en drie mods).

Keer op keer wordt de gemeenschap weer lastiggevallen met een blokverzoek, verzoek tot terugplaatsing van het artikel Guido den Broeder, verzoek tot beveiliging door editwars over vermeende zelfpromotie, et cetera. Vele gebruikers, waaronder Peter Boelens, Ninane, MoiraMoira en ondergetekende, hebben hier tevergeefs geprobeerd te bemiddelen. Dit kan niet zo doorgaan. Ik hoop dat de commissie hier een goed compromis weet te vinden, bijvoorbeeld dat Guido geen verwijzingen naar zichzelf meer mag plaatsen in artikelen, of dat beide partijen geen blokverzoeken meer in mogen dienen.

Translation:

Guido den Broeder is a well appreciated user, who has much knowledge especially about chess and economy. However, the past few weeks the community has been bothered time and again with an affair in which Guido created (or caused others to create) an article about himself, and in other articles created links to his article (for example by placing a reference to a book that he has written, and give the author with that). Especially Mig de Jong and JacobH reacted fiercely on this, and many articles have been locked because of the edit wars about the link to Guido's article and reference to himself.

Furthermore Guido has, despite urging requests of many others not to do so, repeatedly removed comment from his talk page, or put it in a so-called "dustbin". Here he placed all comment that was negative to him, often shortly after it had been posted. He also had a list of users who were not allowed to post on his Talk page, among which many appreciated users (and three admins).

Time and again the community is being bothered with a block request, request to undelete the Guido den Broeder article, request to lock pages because of edit wars over supposed self promotion, et cetera. Many users, among which Peter Boelens, Nina, MoiraMoira and undersigned [=Melsaran], have tried and failed to mediate. This can't go on this way. I hope the committee can find a good compromise, for example that Guido will be forbidden to place references to himself in articles, or that both parties are disallowed to make block requests.

The mentorship was a mutual agreement, arrived at in IRC discussions between me and the nl:Arbcom, intended to keep said other users away from me. Oscar did not have any special rights, he had a specific task.

• I prefer to go with what the arbcom writes, rather than with your statements. And the arbcom writes: "Voor de verdere opvolging acht de commissie het noodzakelijk een mentor aan te stellen, en wijst hiervoor Gebruiker:Oscar aan. Ook de precieze taken van deze mentor staan hieronder vermeld." - translated "For the further continuation the committee considers it necessary to appoint a mentor, and appoints Oscar as such. The precise tasks of the mentor are written below." Appointing the mentor was a decision by the arbcom. That the arbcom considers it as such as well, is clear from their subsequent actions.
• As to the issue about rights or tasks - He had tasks, and the rights that were necessary to fulfill those tasks. Explicitly he had the right to forbid you from editing specific articles if he considered you to be edit warring (quote: "Wanneer Guido den Broeder zich echter toch schuldig maakt aan een bewerkingsoorlog, dan is de mentor bevoegd om Guido den Broeder (tijdelijk) uit te sluiten van het bewerken van het respectievelijke artikel. Of iets wel of niet een bewerkingsoorlog is, is ter beoordeling van de mentor."). Explicitly he had the right to forbid recreation of the Guido den Broeder article (quote: "Correct verwijderde artikelen zoals Guido den Broeder en AMO-K worden conform de geldende gebruiken niet opnieuw aangemaakt dan wanneer zich feiten zouden voordoen die de onderwerpen relevant maken. De mentor dient voorafgaandelijk toestemming te verlenen voor plaatsing.") Implicitly he gets the right to independent from anyone else do any admin duty connected to the case (quote: "De Arbitragecommissie vraagt met aandrang aan de moderatoren om de mentor zoveel mogelijk beveiligingen, verwijderingen, waarschuwingen, blokverzoeken en blokkeringen in verband met deze zaak te laten uitvoeren.")

What happened next was that he refused to perform that task, and instead assigned to himself absolute power over me, for which he had no mandate whatsoever.

• The arbcom seems to be of the opinion that he did perform his task (quote from the rejection of the second case: "De commissie is van mening dat dit mentoraat door Oscar op een professionele manier uitgevoerd wordt"). And after reading w:nl:Gebruiker:Oscar/Mentoraat Guido den Broeder/Nader overig commentaar I get the impression that they're right - before I had no idea who did what wrong, but here I see Oscar doing his job, and Guido after a little more than a week saying that he "ends the agreement" - which is not an agreement, but a decision by the arbcom. As for his mandate - see the last quote in my previous answer, where the arbcom asks the admins to let the mentor do all admin actions connected to the case.

What actually happened was that I cancelled the agreement, and left nl:Wikipedia for half a year because I kept being stalked by said other users.

• Whether you cancelled the agreement or not is beside the point here. The arbcom obviously did not consider the mentorate ended, nor did it consider the arbcom request withdrawn by you, but refused by itself.

No threat was ever sent by me.

• Again, I prefer to take the arbcom's word over yours. And the arbcom writes Na het indienen van deze zaak heeft Guido den Broeder in een email van 3 juli aan gebruiker:Oscar en een afschrift daarvan aan de arbcom aangekondigd strafrechtelijke stappen te zullen ondernemen tegen Oscar. Later Guido wrote in a request to some admin to unblock him that the 'judicial actions' had been ended (I do not know the exact text in this case). If there were no judicial actions, they can also not have been ended.

To begin with, Oscar had no mandate to issue such a block.

• The mandate is given in the arbcom decision that created the mentorate. - Andre Engels 04:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note the contributer above Andre Engels is a member of the Guido den Broeder mobbing clan led by oscar. Andre Engels is abusing checkuser and is violating wikimedia foundation privacy policy at nl wiki. Van Binsbergen 05:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

General comment to Andre Engels

If you simply believe and repeat all the lies that have been written about me, rather than to base your statements on the actual evidence (or lack thereof), then your input is not only unhelpful, you are in fact defaming me further. How can you claim to know what was said in emails that you have not seen, and in private discussions in which you had no part? Where are these mediation attempts that you, by selective quoting, claim there had been? Where had I ever removed other people's comments? (Which is by the way perfectly allowed on nl:Wikipedia, yet I never had: all the insults by stalking users are still in my archives and on the article talk pages.) Did you not see that user Melsaran had no answer to these questions either?

It is this attitude, now also displayed by you, that is the cause of all the problems on nl:Wikipedia to begin with (where I am only one of many victims). Have you no respect? Guido den Broeder 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What now?

None of the above by Andre Engels explains in any way why I am presently blocked. No matter what you think transpired in 2007, the facts are that I did not recreate a deleted article, etc., even though there was a standing agreement that I could, and that none of these allegations were ever named as a reason for my current block. Nobody is threatened, there is no current legal action, etc. etc.

So what now? How can we get this block lifted? Guido den Broeder 14:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention

Please note that involved users on nl:Wikipedia are now abusing their admin privileges to (again) remove evidence to my willingness and opposing parties' unwillingness to resolve matters, without informing the community, the Arbcom or me. Guido den Broeder 08:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) [1][2] Guido den Broeder 01:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note furthermore that a user from nl:Wikipedia hacked my site today and destroyed all files and email accounts. Guido den Broeder 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The abuse of admin privileges seems to end at nl.wp's arbcom, regardless of whether or not you agree with their decision and regardless of whether or not it is the Right™ decision. As to the second part, given that your files and site are on a server that does not belong to the WMF, I cannot fathom how anyone here could intervene in that matter. MBisanz ^talk 20:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess that is why I am not asking you to. I am asking to intervene on nl:Wikipedia.

No, the nl:Arbcom does not decide about admin privileges. Guido den Broeder 20:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

More news: the same user has now threatened to sue me. While I was immediately blocked indefinitely when someone falsely accused me of doing the same, my report of this and the hacking was dismissed as a 'personal attack'. Guido den Broeder 11:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And the war goes on. User:Oscar has now decided to put my website [3] on nl:Wikipedia's blacklist, against an overwhelming consensus not to, while trying to defame our community, and is also removing barnstars from nl:wikipedia user pages of members of our community.[4] Guido den Broeder 13:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What has this got to do with your unblock request? It seems your only point in editing Meta is to get attention to your problems with other projects. Could it be that you did something wrong? That there might even be a reason for blocking you? I guess not. The simplest solution is of course that all users on the Dutch Wikipedia are trolls. I'm sorry about that. It really seems we're all out to get you. Frankly, I'm fed up with your editing here. Please contribute to Meta-Wiki or perhaps Wikisage is more to your liking? --Erwin(85) 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is explicitly reserved for calls for intervention in cases where the local project is failing. If you don't like that, then stay away. The foundation is obliged by law to provide this opportunity and correctly does so. Meanwhile, please refrain from personal attacks and from general attacks on the many good people who are also present at nl:Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed this or would have commented earlier. "The foundation is obliged by law" ... no, I don't think it is so obligated. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Last night, one or more users from nl:Wikipedia again attacked my website, in particular targeting one of our users. They spammed user accounts, a.o. under the names of wikipedia users RonaldB and Waerth, and vandalized dozens of pages. We have a pretty good idea who is behind this. Guido den Broeder 22:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Could something be done about this lies and slander of Guido den Broeder? Thanks, ♠ Troefkaart 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not cast aspersions, please. Work to resolve this dispute and remain nondisruptive. That goes for all participants. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be less lazy and do something about the slander and lies of Mr. Den Broeder instead of giving warnings to the people who only signal that this lies and slander have been around for over a month now. Thanks. ♠ Troefkaart 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to report about the exploits of the other side in this dispute until they or the foundation are willing to resolve it, or Wikipedia dies, whatever comes first. Guido den Broeder 19:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If decorum cannot be maintained, this page will be removed (posting here is a priv, not a right) and you all will have to seek to resolve your grievances another way. Present facts or diffs and let the readers draw their own conclusions. I want to see the words "slander" and "lie" not used at all, by anyone, going forward. That both sides chafe at my warning suggests I'm on the right path. Maintain decorum. Or else. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to see those words, then why do you put them back? And why don't you seek to remove a whole page of them at nl.Wikipedia? Guido den Broeder 20:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is Meta, it's not nl:wp. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

At nl:wp this page would have been removed ages ago. Anyway, as you all know nl:wp is very capable of handling matters on its own, no intervention needed. MBisanz concluded so correctly on sep 2. The issue of the attacks on Mr. Den Broeder's private project is irrelevant here, since there is no connection whatsoever with the WMF.

Mr. Den Broeder just assumes it was done by one or more users from nl:wp, but he hasn't got any evidence. To be accused of such a revolting attack without any proof is slander, and I don't mind Mr. Den Broeder slandering users of nl:wp on his own project, but I don't want this slander on a WMF-project.

It seems to me, and Erwin(85) as well on sep 4, that Mr. Den Broeder is looking for the simplest solution and refuses to accept there might be a reason he was blocked indefinetely on nl:wp. (This text is not meant as an attack, keep in mind english is my 2nd language) ♠ Troefkaart 10:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

@Lar: apparently not. A user from nl:wikipedia has sabotaged our chat channel (and yes, I have evidence for everything I report on this page). Guido den Broeder 11:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I missed a remark of Lar about closing and archiving this page earlier, and it seems the only possibility. Even if Mr. Den Broeder has evidence of sabotage on his small project, that is of no importance on a WMF site. ♠ Troefkaart 16:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

zea:Wikipedia

I am extending my unblock request to include zea:Wikipedia, where I was blocked by the only active admin immediately after I created an account. Admin appeared to be the same user that was blocked at our own site for continuous sabotaging attempts and is already under investigation, see User_talk:Oscar. Guido den Broeder 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts

As being involved also at the Dutch wikipedia i only can back up all arguments given by Guido here. The atmosphere on Dutch wikipedia is very very ill, and this is mainly caused by a few unwilling powerabusing administrators and users who unfortunately don't show any good faith at all. I strongly urge the Meta to desysop oscar in order to put an end to his countless abuses as steward, bureaucrat, administrator (and mentor of Guido). The attacks he delivers in his most recent arbitrage request on Dutch wikipedia is showing disrespect, arrogance, and abuse of his position. Also i urge for unblocking Guido, as the whitch hunt after him does all projects harm. I could back up these thoughts with tons of arguments, but that would lead to pages of files about all cases mentioned here. Maybe best to put the Dutch wiki under quarantaine for half a year by independent foreign stewards, to make the atmosphere better, to end the power abuse of several moderators (administrators) and to be able to normalize things on Dutch wikipedia. The situation gets worse everyday. People who put personal attacks on others are shielded, persons who say something about it are hunted. Just my thoughts, please get in action a.s.a.p. 82.74.166.225 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (i.e. Tjako)

It transpired that User:Oscar has started an Arbcom procedure where he manages to produce literally dozens of the most ugly defamatory statements about me and Tjako, under an obscure header. The nl:Arbcom immediately accepted the procedure yet never bothered to inform me. The friendly user that alerted me, was blocked indefinitely by Oscar yesterday on fake grounds, after which that user's userpage was vandalized by User:Troefkaart, the vandalization in turn protected by Oscar. Guido den Broeder 08:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Den Broeder, as you very well know, the person whom you refer to as a "friendly user" was not blocked on "fake grounds", but for sockpuppetry. Furthermore, there is no relationship between him being blocked on nl:wiki and the fact that he alerted you, like you seem to suggest above. What's more, even the fact that he alerted you is not true, as can be read quite clearly on your user page on en:wiki - where you are, by the way, blocked till infinity for being disruptive. As I somehow get the feeling exactly this might very well happen to you in the not so distant future on meta too, I would, if I may, like to take this opportunity to thank you for the unforgettable moments you've given me with your edits on this and other pages on meta. The many ways in which you have repeatedly proven yourself to be able to mold any fact into a very own personal "truth" are important contributions to my daily dose of humour. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Wutsje 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As usual, comments like this inform us only about the writer. I guess that you must have qualified for admin at nl:Wikipedia by now? Btw, I know nothing about a block at en:Wikipedia. I am was on a wikibreak there to file charges v one of your friends, which I imagine has prompted this response. And last time I looked, it was permissable to have multiple accounts, as long as that is not abused, and user never did as has already been pointed out to you.

Hmm. How can you simultaneously say that it is him on my user page, and claim that he didn't write it? Guido den Broeder 09:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Den Broeder, I'm afraid you got me wrong. My response was entirely and only prompted by a genuine urge to show you my appreciation for your contributions to meta: I do so much like having a good laugh. Again, thank you. Sincerely, Wutsje 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wutsje, what happened to you? You used to be a decent person. Is this the price you had to pay to be allowed to associate with the local incrowd? Guido den Broeder 16:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure

I suggest that perhap this be closed and archived, as it doesn't seem to be producing much that is useful. I'm not seeing any parties working through any differences. ++Lar: t/c 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Wutsje 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So these request pages are only for show? You are here, Lar, so why don't you try to resolve the issue, or find someone who can, instead of busying yourself only with matters of decorum? Guido den Broeder 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)