User | Talk | Edits | Pinboard | Drafts | Articles | Projects |
Hi, Guido. In case you don't find your unban request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: don't worry, I've merely moved it to the bottom of the page. Bishonen | talk 19:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC).
Following a successful appeal to the arbitration committee, you have been unbanned under the following conditions:
For clarity on the second restriction, the block logs of this account and of User:Roadcreature will be annotated accordingly. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 07:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Opabinia. I'm interested in other topics now on Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC) Guido den Broeder ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The article Paraduin has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
I am unable to find significant third-party sources to establish notability of this micronation.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ...
discospinster
talk 18:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
A proposal to reinstate your siteban is being discussed at WP:AN#User Roadcreature / Guido den Broeder. You are welcome to comment there. Fram ( talk) 09:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paraduin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 11:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocked on fake grounds by a hostile administrator (see their comments of today). A handful of users that want me out of their way, to protect their pov, out of jealousy, holding a grudge from a distant past, or because they believe Fram's lies, doesn't constitute a community ban. There has to be merit to the proposal.
Decline reason:
Community ban was reimposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive290#User_Roadcreature_.2F_Guido_den_Broeder. The decision to reimpose the ban looks to be unanimous. There's no reason to believe you were blocked on fake grounds by a hostile admin. Instead, your ban was reimposed by community consensus. Yamla ( talk) 18:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
Asking for Opabinia regalis to weigh in because I believe the Arbcom has something to say about all the unfounded sockpuppet accusations and the definition of community ban. Guido den Broeder ( talk) 17:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yamla, can you please explain how your decline reason ("it was unanimous") addresses my request ("no community ban exists if the proposal has no merit")? Also, how can the community (let alone a very small number of nonresponsive users) reimpose an Arbcom ban? Guido den Broeder ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Talk page access removed. This is a complete timesink. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #20355 was submitted on Jan 17, 2018 23:57:25. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 23:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #20361 was submitted on Jan 18, 2018 14:42:30. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 14:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #20409 was submitted on Jan 23, 2018 17:44:54. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 17:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Guido den Broeder ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #20411 was submitted on Jan 23, 2018 20:28:01. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 20:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
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 m:Global bans policy at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. -- SHB2000 ( talk) 05:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)