— regards, Revi 15:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Note. Talk page access has been revoked from user due to continuance of actions that got them blocked in the first place.

Re the latest comment it was removed and revision deleted. User directed to where to take their matter. As the user has declared themselves retired, the page is now soft protected to stop the continuing arguments and continuing of the activity that has been contentious. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Global ban request notification

Hello, Guido, due to your continued incivility, sockpuppetry and self-promotion this notification is to let you know that I have nominated you for a global ban in accordance with the Global bans policy at Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

user talk page block changed due to ban discussion

As someone has taken the step to have you globally banned, I have removed the block on you so it does not affect your user talk page, so that you can contribute components here, and we will organise for that discussion to be moved to the discussion as it is deemed appropriate. If, however, the behaviour that took place to have that user talk page access removed reoccurs, then there is the potential for that access to be removed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, much appreciated. However, I have already responded on nl:wikibooks here. You have permission to move it to the disussion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Am I allowed to post an unblock request? Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst: ^^

You can always reasonably appeal a block. If you do so, and I see it, I will refer it to M:RfH for community comment rather than action it. I would presume that a limited scope request would be more favourably granted. I would also see that the community would hold you closely to Meta:Civility in such a circumstance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Response to the global ban request

General response

This is not the second, but the third attempt to get me removed over the same ancient stuff, so I will be brief.

My case does not satisfy the criteria for a global ban:

Global bans are exclusively applied where multiple independent communities have previously elected to ban a user for a pattern of abuse.
I am not banned on any WMF wiki, let alone multiple ones.
Where I am blocked, this is not for a 'pattern of abuse'.
The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had a fair opportunity to rectify any problems. – Yes, been given several warnings on Commons.
I did not receive a warning on nl:wikipedia or en:wikipedia. The single warning on Commons was a false accusation of vandalism, and was almost immediately followed by the block and the removal of my talk page access. Until then, my block log had been empty for more than 15 years. The single warning on Meta was also immediately followed by the block.
  • I am a user in good standing on many WMF projects. My contributions have always been constructive and I always seek consensus when someone has a different point of view.
  • Since the introduction of global accounts, I have always edited with a single account (previously I had two local accounts, one on nl:wikipedia and one on en:wikipedia, both of which I discontinued). I strongly believe that people should be accountable for what they say and do, which is why I edit in my real name. The accounts listed as my 'sockpuppets' all have IP addresses which are different from mine, which is a fixed IP address that I can't change. As far as I can see none of them ever violated policy; they were blocked out of the blue. At least two of them were minors.
  • My account was (obviously) not blocked on nl:wikipedia, or I would not have been able to make an edit. The administrator who blocked me for 'block evasion' was subsequently desysoped for abusing her tools and abandoned her account (but resumed editing with an undeclared alternate account shortly after). Previously, my local account was blocked when another administrator demanded certain personal off-wiki favors in return for my right to edit, and I refused.
  • On en:wikipedia I was blocked after an administrator called me a pedophile, which was promptly believed by others. This administrator was subsequently desysoped and WMF-banned.
  • On meta, a user vandalized the one page that I managed there, and continued by calling me a Nazi and spamming e-mails in which I was depicted as a child molester. When I pointed out that this user had little credibility, I got blocked for 'trolling'.
  • On commons, an administrator accused me of vandalizing a page. I hadn't. When I pointed that out, he blocked me for 'not being here'. However, Commons has no such policy. As far as I know, when you upload a few images this doesn't come with an obligation to work on the wiki. I am very ill and living on borrowed time. There is only so much I can do.

None of these blocks have anything to do with me as an editor. What is happening instead, is that some users dislike what I do in real life.

  • I am a published scientist, politician and chess master. When users on nl:wikipedia found out in 2007, they retroactively introduced a new rule that users weren't allowed to reference their own work, which I had on 4 of the 200 pages that I had worked on. They continued to harass me on- and off-wiki ever since.
  • I am the chair of my national patient organization as well as of the international organization of patient advocates. On en:wikipedia, users decided in 2007 that my disease doesn't exist (despite its inclusion in the ICD) and creating an article about it is still strictly forbidden today. Everyone who disagrees gets accused of being me, or one other user who is no longer alive to defend herself.
  • When I started the non-profit project Wikisage in 2008, many users considered this an attack on the WMF, and the WMF itself changed its license to prohibit users from copying Wikisage articles to Wikipedia. However, we support the original purpose of Wikipedia and help to achieve this goal. We have good relations with the local WMF chapter, and Wikisage is considered digital heritage by the Royal Dutch Library. nl:Wikisage has 66K articles created and edited by over 400 active users. Due to Dutch law I haven't been able to contribute anything substantial myself for a decade, yet any link to Wikisage is viewed as self-promotion by me.
  • In 2015, I founded a micronation. Some users took offense over the first article of our constitution, which states that every citizen has the right to fair treatment, or simply because it was founded by me. There are a thousand micronations and they all have uploaded their flag and other images, but for reasons unknown these users consider our micronation as 'not real' and our flag as 'out of scope', in spite of various real-world activities.
  • In 2017, I participated in a feature film (horror thriller) with a Russian child model (now 18) in one of the leading roles. There were over a hundred other participants, but somehow users on wikipedia took offense and considered it their job to voice all sorts of suspicions.

And that's all there is to see. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2024 (CET) moved here from nl:wikibooks Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Responding to individual complaints

None of the complaints comes close to what the policy considers worthy of a global ban. I will address them nonetheless.

  • incivility - Stop saying things about me or others that aren't true and you will find me kind, generous and patient.
  • self-promotion - Uploading an image of your national flag is not self-promotion, and neither is linking to another encyclopedia than Wikipedia for background information.
  • operates a wiki where he as the owner allows attack page of Wikimedians - We only allow articles and essays, attack pages are not acceptable. If you see one, provide the link and it will be dealt with.
  • harassment and legal threats - Never in my life have I harassed a person or made a legal threat against someone.
  • impersonating an administrator across multiple projects - I have been an administrator on a range of projects for over half a century, as well as a board member, a developer, a designer, a producer, and so forth. But not on any WMF wiki, and I never said I was. Wikiversity invited me to apply for custodianship once, but the place got into disarray before we could go forward with it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • has a many years long history of "contributing" to multiple WMF projects about essentially one subject only, i.e. Guido den Broeder - I have not been active on nl:wikipedia since 2008. At the time, chess users asked me to write a small article about myself as a chess player. I haven't been active on en:wikipedia since 2009, except for a few months in 2017. I didn't write an article about myself there, nor on any other WMF wiki. The single photo of me on Commons was uploaded in 2022 by Mdd.
  • lock evasion - This is my global account, carrying my own name. It is not locked. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • here was definitely socket puppeting going on as the user Lyrda and The Jolly Bard has the same singular focus on this one obscure russian child actor - She has some 7 million followers, so statistically some of them are bound to be on Wikipedia. There is no claim that Lyrda is my sockpuppet. The Jolly Bard's checkuser didn't match. He only showed a brief interest in the topic after he was accused of being me. As for me, I gave up on Wikipedia in 2008. As a courtesy, I released some pictures that I took of her in 2017, and corrected some errors in her articles on various wikis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • the rest of his uploaded commons photos are all things related to his own obscure micronation - Paraduin Productions was one of the companies involved in the production of The Russian Bride, so all my uploads are connected to the micronation. However, I uploaded only a few images. None have been deleted. The images that show the location of the micronation's territory on the Danube were uploaded by other users. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • the former account was blocked for the first time in June 2007 because of abuse of sock puppets. - There was an allegation that I used a sockpuppet for a single edit. I provided evidence that this wasn't a sockpuppet, but merely my friend W.R. who had made this one edit on my computer. This is why the checkuser was a match and as a consequence my IP was sitting in your illegal CU Wiki when The Jolly Bard edited in 2014, available for comparison that was never performed.
  • several blocks and ArbCom interventions followed - All these blocks were overturned by the community until their right to do so was taken away.
  • under the condition you would accept mentoring by an admin the block was lifted. This was initiated in Oct 2007 but came to an end in July 2008 because of several escalations: even during this mentorship period you received 7 blocks from or supported by the mentor - the 'mentorship' only lasted one day, when the 'mentor' demanded that I should 'see' him in real life to keep my right to edit. Arbcom refused to hear my case, and the community had been silenced, so I stopped contributing until the assigned period had passed. Then this 'mentor' refused to abandon his position, so I quit.
  • ArbCom decided for an indefinite block after the final straw of a legal threat - When someone commits a crime against me, I am allowed to take legal measures. The fact that this person was on Wikipedia didn't magically turn that into an offense, and I didn't announce it on-wiki. I simply reported this 'mentor' to the police.
  • same about the opinion of the Royal Dutch Library. Wikisage hosts copies of nl.wikipedia articles, especially ones we per our DR procedure would nominate for deletion, for instance for copyright violations: the Royal Library know better than to get involved in these kind of practices. - If you see a copyright violation, you can always bring that to our attention. The letter from the Royal Dutch Library can be found here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • your article has been deleted for a total of 4 times because of problems with notability - As a chess master, who among other things ended high in national championships, wrote seven tournament books, and is mentioned in many reliable sources, I easily satisfy the criteria set by the chess community on Wikipedia. This is why the chess community tried to reinstate my article several times, which was thwarted by your friend the former admin who indeed seems to edit again under a new name. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • they have failed on nlwiki, enwiki, meta and commons - No evidence of any failure on my part has been presented. There is instead a wealth of evidence for a lack of due process. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • as for The Jolly Bard, its user page explicitly states confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Guido den Broeder. Not just suspected, but confirmed. - An en:wikipedia administrator assumed that there was a CU match on nl:wikipedia. There wasn't. Apparently, the next administrator added to that mistake by concluding that there had been a CU match on en:wikipedia. Please keep in mind that en:Arbcom had already looked into these allegations when they unblocked me in 2017, and considered them without merit. Note that The Jolly Bard edited on Wikisage during 2015-2017 where checkuser is also available. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • repeatedly impersonating an administrator and then refusing to clarify what site he's an admin of - Asking you to stop being rude to new users in your deletion requests, as I did exactly once, is not 'impersonating an administrator'. That you refused to listen and got blocked was entirely your own fault. Meanwhile, demanding private information in exchange for someone's right to edit is offensive (other words apply here as well). Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I defended Ikan Kekek - I found you and your mentor Ikan Kekek supporting an attempt to glorify a country by rewriting history through inadequately named images, incorrectly interpreting INUSE as both of you often do. My view prevailed (the file was renamed) and since then you have continued to harass me at every opportunity, culminating in this absurd global ban discussion in which all your claims are fabricated. By the way, is there a reason why you left out an essential part of my defense? Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Answering questions

  • did we take into account the rarity of film set photos? - When Kristina's mother wanted to add a photo to her article and correct a few errors, she was immediately threatened with a block by en:wikipedia administrators. That is why she left it to me to take care of things. Of course I can only release pictures that I took myself but I have lots, not just from The Russian Bride but also from other movies. As things stand, however, they will not become available to Commons. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • show that there is at least one wiki, whether it's a Wikipedia in any language or Wikidata or Commons, in which you have done many many good edits and no more than a few bad edits, in which no one has even accused you of bullying or doxing, whether the accusation was true or not - I don't have many many edits anywhere because I have been severely ill since 1987. However, I submit nl:wikipedia, en:wikipedia, de:wikipedia and nl:wikibooks. By the way, you may want to read this discussion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • about the issue of self-promotion: I suppose this is about the articles GdB apparently wrote about himself? - The only article I ever wrote here about myself was a short chess article in 2007, on request. It was not promotional, just providing some data to fill a small gap in the list of notable chess players. At the time this was allowed and there were in fact instructions for how to create an article about yourself. I was not blocked for it then, so it eludes me why I should be globally banned for it 17 years later. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • how does it work? Is this now a mere vote despite the "request for comments" name? - I don't know, nobody has bothered to explain the procedure to me. There is so much fundamentally wrong here. Why is the accuser allowed to just make things up without evidence? Why is there no independent investigation before a trial commences? Why hasn't a defender been assigned with the possibility to call witnesses for the defense? How can accuser and witnesses be allowed to vote? How can numerous people vote without hearing the defense? And so forth. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reacting to comments

  • harassments/threats is a serious issue - Indeed it is, and if I ever were to do such a thing, you could have the beginning of a case. Meanwhile, I have been on the receiving end of harassment and threats pretty much non-stop, and very little has been done about it. It was the WMF that banned one of the attackers, while the community considered him a hero. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • bullying is unacceptable - Indeed it is, and if I would ever do such a thing, it could lead to a local block of something like one day, although it usually doesn't and people just move on. Guido den Broeder (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • spreading misinformation about other users is very much a form of online harassment - Indeed it is, and you should all stop doing this. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • AP295 is now blocked - The supporters have now started to eliminate the opposers. Nothing has changed in 17 years. Guido den Broeder (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    They were blocked for incivility and trolling. That is not "eliminating the opposers". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 10:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Please don't reply at multiple venues. Keep these sections clean. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    There is an issue where you misrepresent. Misrepresentation is a form of misinformation, so please align with your avowed principles. AP295 is only blocked from editing one single page, an administrative page that has ZERO to do with contributing to your case. That was done for abuse of that page. So there is nothing about supporters eliminating opposers. It is correct they were warned about their approach and pointed to Meta:Civility, and if they cannot undertake a civil debate without being insulting, then they can contribute elsewhere.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
    See above. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • there are plenty of fandom wikis, Britannica, etc., better than a wiki that only has a mere 100 or so pages - Wikisage has over 66,000 articles. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • this user was banned on de.wikipedia for extremely severe personal attacks, including but not limited to death wishes and open celebrations of other users' deaths. These are the kind of people who support Guido den Broeder, and whom Guido den Broeder supports - I don't know this user, but looking at their de:Arbcom case I see the familiar pattern of many accusations and zero evidence. To give an indication of where I really stand: two of my friends have been murdered, and a third friend barely managed to escape the same fate. I have protected others from serious danger multiple times, and have frequently been on the receiving end of death threats and death wishes, including on en:wikipedia. So no, that is not something I support. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • it is untrue that "many people openly supporting incivility" - Indeed, what brought us here was my criticism of incivility by SHB2000 and others. What this discussion shows, however, is that there is a double standard where some users can be as uncivil as they please while bans are proposed for others for merely being direct. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • as for The Jolly Bard, its user page explicitly states confirmed by a CheckUser as a sockpuppet of Guido den Broeder. Not just suspected, but confirmed - Something is missing here, however. Where can we find this confirmation? It doesn't exist. What does exist, is compelling evidence to the contrary. Guido den Broeder (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


  • My IP, until sometime in 2021 due to KPN taking over XS4All, was, as evidenced by this IP talk. I edited on en:wikipedia in 2008/10 and then for a short while in 2017. A checkuser was done for The Jolly Bard, but only to confirm his alts. There was plenty of opportunity to compare my IP to his and those of several dozen other alleged sockpuppets, but it never happened.
  • Natuur12 started editing on nl:wikipedia in 2012.[1] We've never met. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Link to discussion on Wikidata.[2]
  • Several weeks after a parcel of land on the Danube was claimed for Paraduin, a minor Czech politican heard about this and tried to begin Liberland on the same territory (not possible by international law). Liberland is not a micronation, it is a scam, heavily leaning on a puffery Wikipedia article by some of their github users to attract gullible readers that have to pay 10,000 euro to one day become a 'citizen'. They didn't even know the name of the territory and stil don't know the name of the island. But as usual, Wikipedia administrators have this upside down and instead of opposing the scam, they wiped Paraduin from history. (The fact that people on the other side of the river used to speak Hungarian has been wiped from Wikipedia history as well.) This is the real reason why they blocked The Jolly Bard on en:wikipedia, who named Paraduin in the Liberland article. Since he hadn't violated any policy, they had to make something up. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • For the record, I am not Chescargot, who seems to be writing an article about me on nl:wikipedia.[3] I don't know who they are, and I have no contact with them. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Supporters have now started to remove opposing votes.[4] Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

My questions


In the 1970s and 1980s, and ever since, I have advocated in favor of sharing human knowledge. I wasn't the only one. Some of the first products on my path were the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings and the Encyclopaedia of Econometrics, to which I contributed. As an active member of Ecozoek, I was instrumental in the creation of a repository of research data, freely available to all researchers. I also developed database software (Ecobase), including an interpreter and a text editor.

During a brainstorm session I came up with the idea of a hypertext encyclopedia, where knowledgeable people would share advances in human knowledge. Unfortunately, in 1987 I fell ill with myalgic encephalomyelitis, a polio-type vascular disorder of the central nervous system, and all my activities came to a full stop.

In 2006, as a representative of my patient organization, one of my tasks was to improve information about ME on the internet. Wikipedia was merely one of a hundred sites with random garbage on this topic. However, when I arrived, I became full of hope that my idea of two decades before had somehow been realized.

As it turned out, this was not the case. Wikipedia is something else entirely, a social experiment to see how far people will go under rules that reward evildoing. But the good news was that the mediawiki software is available to everyone. So I quit and in 2008 I started Wikisage. A few weeks later my bank went bankrupt, but not before they stole all my savings and claimed my house. Subsequently the city of Rotterdam denied me welfare multiple times. I won all these cases but they simply did it again and again. During much of 2013-1016, I was entirely without means.

Later in 2016 and early in 2017 I won some major cases, however by that time a new law had been introduced in the Netherlands that forbids people on welfare to do anything that can be construed as work.

I briefly returned to Wikipedia in 2017 for the sole reason of protecting young miss Pimenova from harm. A few weeks ago she turned 18 and I became a pensioner at the same time, setting both of us free. I expect an opportunity to take new pictures this year.

To summarize, I have always been no more than a visiting doctor here, and never an inmate. The idea that I was busily editing with a range of alternate accounts, on a project that I considered a total failure, while standing in line at the foodbank for survival, fighting in court, or lying in bed with severe pain, thereby risking my chances to regain an income, is preposterous, as well as a gross overestimation of your importance. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

So what happens next?

Regardless of the outcome of this absurdly skewed procedure, absolutely nothing will happen to me. I may or may not do some edits on Wikibooks. There will certainly be no more contributions by me to Commons. I have a thousand pictures that I finally can upload, but that will be under a new license, one that excludes the WMF. None of this affects my life.

A lot will change for the WMF though, but you can't see that from the inside, so there is no point talking about it. This equally won't involve me.

Please read en:Grandiose delusions. Thank you very much. Steinbach (formerly Caesarion) 11:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Please don't reply at multiple venues. Keep these sections clean. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Partial unblock request

Unblock request declined

This blocked user has had their unblock request reviewed by one or more administrators, who has/have reviewed and declined this request.
Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason.
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason: I would like the ability to edit my user page as it is used on many projects where I am in good standing, and it needs maintenance. It has been more than 5 years. At the time I was hurt and emotional because of mean things that were said about me both on- and off-wiki, of which you could only see a small part. My behavior in response to this was subpar, for which I apologize. I have no wish to edit anywhere outside my user space.

Decline reason: You have been globally banned by the community since this unblock post was made, therefore I have no option but to decline this request. --Ferien (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

বাংলা | English | español | français | magyar | italiano | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | українська | 中文 | edit

Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  On hold Put to the community special:diff/26063167  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Guido den Broeder (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Billinghurst, there are only a few comments, so it's up to you to decide. Guido den Broeder (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Billinghurst, anything? Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Response to individual comments