User talk:JanDeFietser

Welcome!

Hello, JanDeFietser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Slp1 (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan Thanks for you addition to the polytechnique article. I've removed it for now, because the source you gave (and all the others out there) say that she was shot despite the fact that she said they weren't feminists. I hope you understand.--Slp1 (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rereading the source I get the impression that you are right. Thanks. --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. I appreciate your openness to checking!! Anyway, like I said, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy editing here. Have a good weekend! --Slp1 (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have reverted your addition to Cameron, I feel it is a news story not worthy of inclusion, I am available to discuss it on his talkpage if you want, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, perhaps it would fit better in an article about a list of Conservative policy promises that they will introduce if they get elected. I was just looking and the broken promise of a vote on Europe is not included, if you want to add it, you are more than welcome to open a discussion on the talkpage and see if there is any support for adding it? Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also thanks, but since the addition to Cameron resulted from my main interest in Afghanistan and not in Cameron, do not count on me for a discussion on alleged promises of a vote on Europe, on which I have no information. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't worry..that is well past..I was thinking that your addition required a little more consideration and I have opened a section regarding it on the Cameron talkpage here , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JanDeFietser, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions especially what you did for Bahai Faith, Flemish and Dutch language, 3 articles that are of personal appeal. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Bedankdt..--Buster7 (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goedemorgen!

Thanks. As you might guess, I am a Dutchman (and to be true: my ancestors in paternal line were Flemish: they were refugees who migrated to the Northern Netherlands after the outbreak of the Eighty Years War in the 16th century), so some contributing to the articles on Dutch and Flemish is somehow quite obvious to me. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jan, I have now also removed your edit here reporting the announcement of a protest in 2010, please try to consider that this is an encyclopedia and a long term viewpoint, if the protest becomes notable after it happens then we can add comments about it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I can follow your remark, but I do not completely agree. The announcement of Wilders, and the fact that he calls the prosecution "political" and in the meantime makes it that himself by organizing that demonstration- is already notable. However, indeed it is better to be patient than to fuss about this. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning to you Jan, yes, patience is a wikipedian virtue.. as I said at cameron, add the comment to the talkpage and see if there is any support to add it from any other editors there, I am only one editor, feel free to ask anything and if I can help I will, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is his name spelled? In the article you use Staffan de Mistura! Please clarify. Thanks. PamD (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Italian di. 'will correct it. Thanks --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gelukkig Kerstfeest and Niewjaar.....--Buster7 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, dankjewel, voor jou ook fijne Kerstdagen en een gelukkig Nieuwjaar! --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're adding too much Afghanistan's political information into Hamid Karzai article. I suggest you take most of that info and add it into Politics of Afghanistan.--119.73.0.171 (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I already suggested to create seperate pages on the Karzai administrations: a page on his presidency in the transitional period (i.e. until the first elections), a page on his first elected term and a page on his recently started current term. See the talk page. Then the information on the page on his personality would stay limited. What do you think? --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may create another page but don't remove relevent information about Karzai from his page. Follow examples of other presidents such as Presidency of George W. Bush / George W. Bush.--119.73.2.138 (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably have seen, in the meantime I created the page Karzai administration. I did this by copying the page on Hamid Karzai, and then removing from the copy the information that is merely about the person and removing from the original the information that is merely about his administration. If you notice that on one of both pages information got lost or misplaced in this operation, please feel free to correct that. Merry X-Mas, --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 NZ Herald article says "the elite troops had arrived in Afghanistan". So they arrived there on or before Sep 21, 2009.

Their location at Kabul was disclosed in October 2009, per the stuff.co.nz article

You wrote: "In December 2009, these troops arrived in Afghanistan"

Please go back and remove "December 2009", it is erroneous. XLerate (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is, IF it would be erroneous. When two sources mention different dates, the most reasonable lecture of the given information is that the first source refers to the announcement of a future event (on August 10, 2009 by Prime Minister John Key) which then erroneously already was reported as an "arrival", and that the second source refers to the actual arriving on their operational grounds, in December 2009, which is not in Kabul, as I have understood.

In the meantime, in October 2009, a Norwegian publication revealed where the NZSAS would be deployed, i.e. were then not deployed yet.

You rely on just a single source, and when a later source quoted by someone else then contradicts the information of the earlier one, you then somehow "conclude" that "your" source "must be right" and the later source from someone else then "must be wrong", and you do not doubt your "conclusion"? Most of the times, it is better to think first of an explanation that explains the appearing contradiction between the old and the new information in stead of a thoughtless dismissing of the new information without recognizing the relevant distinctions: first there was an announcement of the deployment, second there was an arrival in Afghanistan and third there was a final arrival in the field, that is on the operational grounds. So, please, first go back on your reasoning behind your request.

Merry X-mas, by the way!

Rereading my source, I see that it mentions the date 21st September 2009 below the headline, while the date above it is only the current date of this reading, which is indeed not the date of the writing of the article: my fault. --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it is kind of concealed there. Merry Christmas to you! XLerate (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to add categories to new pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing my edits from that page, that's vandalism.--119.73.1.134 (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing your edits? Did I do that? When? --JanDeFietser (talk) 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking to me.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May be you confuse me perhaps with someone else? Please point me then where and when I removed any edit from you --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean that 119.73.1.134 is talking to Ryūlóng on my talk page, but for which reason? --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The removing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's obvious, but not by me. --JanDeFietser (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, we don't really need multiple sources for one statement. Also, have you seen {{cite web}}?  fetchcomms☛ 20:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One source for a statement is easier to be wrong than more: "unus testis nullus testis"... --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if they all state the same thing, it's not needed. Now, if two sources contradict each other, that's and issue.  fetchcomms☛ 20:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan,

I think that we either need to describe in more detail who has made the assertion that the explosive matches that used by Pakistans ISI, or maybe remove the information altogether. The article (it's not a report) in The Daily Beast is written by an author who appears to be sympathetic to Russia and has connection to Russian media and probably to the Russian intelligence community. He may well have his own agenda. I don't think that The Daily Beast can be used for claims that appear to be extraordinary (i.e. a claim hinting at the direct involvement of Pakistans intelligence agency in the attack. Please let me know how you think about this.

Regards.  Cs32en  20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HI Cs32en,

according to 'The Daily Beast' the source was an unnamed Afghan official. My idea is to see if further publications follow the next few days. As you might have seen, I formulated it carefully. It is not really clear if the claim is extraordinary: the same suspicion was heard about the Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul last year. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Afghan government generally regards Pakistan as an adversary, if not an enemy, while Pakistan sees the Afghan government as an ally of India. So Afghan officials would be interested in making such claims, especially if they can find a journalist who accepts to publish them without insisting on citing the source by name. While the information may be true, we need to tell readers that this information does not come from an uninvolved news outlet, but from an involved party. (I myself had added the information some days ago, and removed it subsequently, when I looked more closely at where it came from.)  Cs32en  20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but to me it is not clear yet that the message really comes from an "involved party". The mistrust between the (present) Afghan government and Pakistan is also worthwhile to be mentioned somewhere, when it is related to events and if a quotable source can be found. --JanDeFietser (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the disagreements between the U.S. and Pakistan have been described by multiple reliable sources in their reports about the event, this has, to my knowledge, not been the case for the Afghan-Pakistani relationship. It's quite likely that there will be some reports about this, maybe not in news articles, but in analyses from think tanks or research institutes. So it's probably worthwhile to look out for such sources.  Cs32en  13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insertion of the Netherlands legitimacy section into Multi-National Force Iraq. I believe it's misplaced there, as that page deals with the formal military command in 2004-2009, not the legality of the Iraq invasion itself. I've moved the section to Legality of the Iraq War#Netherlands, which I believe is a more appropriate placing. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The latter seems indeed more appropriate - I did not know about the existence of that page. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Marjah (town). Thanks -- Joshdboz (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message on my talk page, Jan (I replied briefly there too) and for highlighting the book on your blog. All such mentions are very welcome.

I see you're a Wikipedian cyclist. I fear I can hardly claim to belong to that category. But I cycle once a year -- on the day when our whole village goes out on the road -- and each year my ageing bicycle gets a round of laughs. I'd put it somewhere between 60 and 70 years old, and still running well (downhill at least). Andrew Dalby 19:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nou Jan, dat is toch weer fraai--daar zit je dan zonder regering! Sterkte ermee! En niet allemaal voor Wilders gaan stemmen, alsjeblieft. Groeten, Drmies (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beste Drmies, werd er nog geregeerd dan?

Nee, ik pieker er niet over op Wilders te gaan stemmen (het woord "overwegen" vermijd ik, want op de Nederlandse Wikipedia blijkt men dat voor een synoniem van "dreigen" te moeten houden...: zie namelijk mijn sinds november jl. alsmaar voortdurende "blokkering OT" aldaar), als ik trouwens al ga stemmen

(na bepaalde gebeurtenissen in mijn leven in 1992/1993 heb ik gedurende een jarenlange duistere periode helemaal niet meer gestemd en mijn oude belangstelling voor politiek ontwaakte pas weer in 2001 door de opkomst van Pim Fortuyn. Ik kan me nog het moment herinneren hoe ik me ervan bewust werd dat het was ontwaakt: in de kleedkamer na de karatetraining gooide iemand een balletje over hem op, waarop ik zoiets opmerkte als "ik verheug me op zijn komst in de Tweede Kamer, maar dat vind ik alleen echt nog geen goede reden om dan ook maar op hem te gaan stemmen". Ook herinner ik me met een aantal mensen op me heen dat ik destijds zelfs voorspeld heb dat die politicus zou worden vermoord (niet hoe en wanneer en door wie, want ik claim geen helderziendheid) en ook de schok die door ons heen ging toen mijn voorspelling juist bleek, d.w.z. was uitgekomen. Kort daarop heb ik toen voor het eerst sinds jaren weer gestemd (nee, bewaar me, niet op de LPF).

Geert Wilders zegt ook dingen waarvan ik vind dat die gezegd mogen worden, maar tevens veel dat om tegenspraak vraagt. Bij Tweede Kamer-verkiezingen zal Geert Wilders blijkens de recente peilingen toch wel hoog scoren, dus lijkt een versterken van dat tegengeluid me eerder gewenst dan een bijdrage aan de overwinning die me welhaast toch al onvermijdelijk lijkt. Hopelijk beaam je het belang van aandacht voor de in Nederland tegen hem aanhangige strafzaak en met name het lemma erover (graag had ik me daaraan gewijd op de Nederlandse Wikipedia, zoals ik daar maanden geleden al aankondigde: de Nederlandse Wikipedia heeft er nog steeds geen lemma over en de vermeldingen in het lemma over Geert Wilders zelf lopen achter - maar ja, geblokkeerd hè...). Volg mijn bijdragen alhier s.v.p. kritisch (dat bleek in juni jl. op de Nederlandse Wikipedia ook al een onbegrepen verzoek...) --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ik vind zelf de aanhangige strafzaak erg belangrijk en ik waag me aan de voorspelling dat Wilders' advocaat een beroep zal gaan doen op het "ontbreken van wederrechtelijkheid" en mogelijk daarbij dat ietwat in de vergetelheid geraakte arrest van de Hoge Raad in de zaak van de Huizer veearts uit de jaren '30 van stal haalt. Ik schreef daarover reeds op mijn weblog. Ook een van mijn voorspellingen over hoe de rechtbank Amsterdam zou kunnen reageren op die door Wilders gepresenteerde lijst met 18 gewenste getuigen bleek trouwens inmiddels juist. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Netherlands cabinet Balkenende-4, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Wiki to well, but you can update her page now. See my notes on the MS talk page. --Anrkist (User talk:Anrkist) 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.137.55 (talk) [reply]

Thanks. I'll have a look. --JanDeFietser (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that two plus two equals four. Is mathematics then a religion? You are reading too much into a common usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rick, if you believe that a number is the sum of two other numbers without ever checking the calculation (or perhaps if necessary counting and re-counting), then your mathematics has nothing to do with science and indeed more with "religion" or even superstition... --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To explain my choice for the word "ideology" instead of "belief": many liberals are also atheists and sincerely abhor to be called "believers". --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now your contribution would qualify as wp:OR because you've provide no references to back up your edit. Could you provide citations? And what does this mean, at the end of your edit, "QuickiWiki Look Up" Thanks 842U (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for your reaction. That "QuickiWiki Look Up" is an unintended trace left there by an add-on in my browser and should be erased. As you can read, in my edit I mentioned the programs of the political parties. If you want, I can mention these parties and also create links to their programs, which are in Dutch, but what do you think, doesn't it go too far to quote these programs? --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on International Freedom Alliance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Kudpung (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody informed me about that. I wonder who is behind that machination (?). However, everybody can ask me questions that I would gladly answer. For the rest I advise them to keep cool and suspend judgment. --JanDeFietser (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(removed after hint of other user) --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(removed after hint of other user) --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like your best bet (if you wish) to resolve the problems you have been having on nl.wiki would be to launch a request for comment at Meta-Wiki. (From the MW page) "It (meta wiki RfC's) can also be used for unresolved conflicts or other issues in regards to other Wikimedia projects if discussion on the relevant project has not been successful." I doubt you would find anyone here on the en.wiki who can help you on nl.wiki, your best bet would be over at Meta Wiki. Best of luck, Mauler90 _talk 21:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO forget about those guys at NL, you are doing fine here and contributing, let go the page let it be deleted and move on editing here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reaction. You have no idea about the damage, but I appreciate your encouragement regarding the work here.--JanDeFietser (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ik neem vandaag lekker rust (wat schrijven betreft althans). Belangstellenden verwijs ik naar mijn weblog van vanochtend "Wat was hier nu eigenlijk cyberpesten? (2)"--JanDeFietser (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, I am unsure what is going on but this is the english wikipedia and large swathes of foreign discussion should not be going on here. Are things ok? Off2riorob (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi Rob,

Thanks for your reaction. The problem is that I was blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia on 6th November for a "legal threat" that had not been there at all, and that I am still not deblocked even after my clear declaration dated 19th November, and that when I wanted to bring this for the Arbcom of the Dutch Wikipedia, they blocked their email address for me. There is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia.

Of course this should be discussed on the Dutch Wikipedia, but when all access is blocked there must be another way.--JanDeFietser (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove my addition of today from this talk page. Who wants to know more can search its history.--JanDeFietser (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would let those guys be with themselves, I have heard reports of many problem at some of the smaller wikipedia, at least you are good here. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. Thank you. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, but if it is useful to prevent things from overheating now, I might as well for peace's sake take a step back for the moment. However I am willing to answer questions. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for continuing the nl.wiki dispute on en.wiki. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

This edit, after this ANI thread is too much. I've blocked you for a week. Take your damn dispute to meta, back to nl.wiki, off to the blogosphere - I really don't care. Anywhere but here. TFOWR 18:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR, get a grip on yourself, control your emotions and reread: there was NO infringement, NO continuing of the nl.wiki dispute from my side after the message of Uncle G. This blocking is NOT justified by the facts.

Also, please not only relax a bit but also do not swear or use sortlike foul language ("damn") towards this user: that slip of your tongue might be a tell-tale about your competence. And is there any "ownership" involved here? --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted Vianello's words in which he jumps to a much too far stretching conclusion and in which he seems not to think of the possibility of an own error (I explicitly used the word "misunderstanding" - please check my words above). Vianello wrote @ Faust "Since you have demonstrated you do not care about being honest, any possible veracity to your future claims has been called into question." Again I ask: Could there be no misunderstanding here?

Faust wrote @ Count Iblis about his weblog. HOW, according to which quirk can his weblog be related with that "Dutch disease"-discussion? Earlier today, Count Iblis referred to my weblog, which is not the same and should not be mixed up with his.

And again I have to resist temptation to make a comparison with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia, which I still do NOT make. Read diligently, TFOWR. If you read something else in my words, that could be something only in your mind and nowhere else. If I made that comparison, how was it then? I will probably appeal to this ridiculous block tomorrow. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it: "I have to resist temptation to make a comparison now with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia". That's exactly why I blocked you. If you can tell me - honestly - that you weren't referring to nl.wiki I'll give due consideration to lifting your block. TFOWR 19:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that I did NOT make the comparison with a certain smaller Wikipedia. Please reread. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote this: "I have to resist temptation to make a comparison now with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia". What's to re-read? Why mention "a certain smaller Wikipedia at all? Why not resist the temptation to avoid even mentioning the comparison. DammitCrikey, I was hoping for at least an imaginative excuse. TFOWR 19:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Struck "foul" language, inserted bland alternative. TFOWR 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again now, I have to resist temptation to make a comparison with practices on a certain smaller Wikipedia. Only if I go into details I might perhaps infringe. Reconsider this ridiculous block and also again, please, do not swear or use sortlike foul language ("dammit") towards this user. Thanks in advance. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the {{unblock}} tag, described in your block notice, to request that another admin consider your block. I've considered it, and decided not to change or lift the block myself. Maybe another admin will think differently. TFOWR 19:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could have left away your last word as well. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable: This Dutch weblog, in a just published article full of untruths about me and repeating those false accusations of Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia about "slander" (that there was not) and also the false accusations of "legal threat" (that there was neither), boasts that the current blocking of Faust and me is a "success" of a lobby of Dutch Wikipedians. That seems an interesting challenge by some mediocre figures. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) ὁ[reply]

Jan, did you see the decision at the noticeboard or were you notified about the decision that was (more or less) ..you and these other people are not to mention the dutch issue here at all? Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lobby today going on from admins of some smaller Wikipedia, as can be read in that boasting Dutch weblog (see link above). Wasn't there some kind of an "Embassy" on the English Wikipedia where we refugees can apply for protection against such dark machinations? --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - Look as you have been here over six months with a clean block log, if you understand and will say you won't breach the conditions again and accept them, add an unblock and request an unblock and you have a chance of a result, if you understand why you have been blocked and assert you will not repeat the issue ..

"All parties are urged to stop discussing IMMEDIATELY the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion on the English Wikipedia. Continuing this discussing in ANY form, even on ANI or amongst eacho ther on user talk pages, will result in immediate blocking for a period of a week".

Suggested parties would be:

   * User:JanDeFietser
   * User:Faust
   * USer:JZ85
   * User:Theobald Tiger
   * User:MoiraMoira
   * User:Hazardous Matt
   * User:Grimbeert
   * User:TheDJ

   * Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground
   * Wikipedia:No personal attacks
   * Wikipedia:Civility

Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith.

Hi Jan,

I think you may have gotten into trouble by accident by invoking the NL-Wiki dispute indirectly. But note that even a sentence like e.g.: "This looks like NL-Wiki here" which does not explicitely raise any actual content of the dispute, can trigger a discussion that does raise the actual content. That's why the restriction not to discuss the dispute has to be followed in a ridiculously strict sense. I think if you agree to stick to this restriction, you'll be unblocked. Count Iblis (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning my dear Count Iblis,

thanks for your message. In the meantime, that weblog was launched that calls itself Wiki-Safe.

One might wonder how "safe" ANY Wikipedia could be with such pathetic "protectors" (brave knights that stumble in their shining armour...). They claim already a "first success": a severe case of "philonikia". If I have time I will today appeal against the block here on the English Wikipedia. I am not in a hurry. --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say on Jan's behalf that the remark he made on my behalf turned out to be true (and The DJ's account of things too hastily made). Perhaps the block should be lifted because of that? --Faust (talk) 06:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan and Faust, that site indeed suggests that some off-wiki campaigning may have been going on. However, I would urge you not to raise this issue here, because that again brings the trouble at NL-Wiki here, albeit very indirectly. But even indirectly refering to that dispute should be avoided.

For the appeal, you should not defend your actions or explain them in detail. All you need to do is to say that you won't raise that issue here on EN-Wiki again. At most, you could say that you misunderstood the meaning of "not raising the issue again" without going into details. The Admins are aware that there are reasons why from your point of view you would like to say more to defend yourself. However, what they really want to see is that you are able to not raise this issue here. This is how appeals work in general on Wikipedia; an "appeal" isn't really an appeal like that that of legal system. Otherwise, in this particular case, you would be in a catch-22 situation: defending yourself properly would necessarily bring in the dispute that you were asked not to raise anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The point is that I just can not stand false accusations. My idea for this moment is that, again, I can beter take some rest. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Count Iblis, I think the block should be lifted because he was speaking on my behalf and pointing out that my block was unjustified. Seeing as my block has been lifted because it was unjustified, at the very least we can say that he was right in saying so. The block of Jan therefore seems unjustified as well. --Faust (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Faust, but I must really admit that it is indeed a personal problem from me that I can not stand false accusations. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later I will appeal to the block. I will request for a shortening in stead of a lifting. The reason of my edit about which some admin took offence was the fact that here on the English Wikipedia again I had to endure false accusations and parroting of false accusations (by JZ85 and Grimbeert). Unfortunately, not everyone seems able to imagine how it is to be accused falsely again and again without being allowed then to defend yourself to those false accusations. --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is strange. In the (Dutch) law concerning slander it is not illegal to defend yourself against slander, even though that may in itself be slanderous. So, catch 22 does not apply there. I believe the same thing applies to all western countries on the basis of the freedom of person (universal rights of man). Perhaps we should find the appropriate wikipedia guideline and make a mention of this, to prevent future situations like this one for everybody? --Faust (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Faust, according to the Dutch law, defending oneself against slander cannot be slander (so it is logically impossible that the defence itself is slanderous); this follows from the legal definition in art. 261 and 261 Sr (Dutch Criminal Code or Penal Code from 1881).

The latter crime is a qualified form of the former and there is this important clause in the Dutch text of the former: "Noch smaad, noch smaad schrift bestaat voor zover de dader heeft gehandeld tot noodzakelijke verdediging, of te goeder trouw heeft kunnen aannemen dat het te last gelegde waar was en dat het algemeen belang de telastlegging eiste." "Smaad" and "smaadschrift" are described in art. 261.1 Sr, and art. 262 Sr states (underlining by me): "Hij die het misdrijf van smaad of smaadschrift pleegt, wetende dat het te last gelegde feit in strijd met de waarheid is, wordt, als schuldig aan laster, gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste twee jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie." Mind that both crimes are NOT exactly the same as "libel" and "slander" in the British and American Common Law system(s).

The reason why the 19th century lawmakers on the European continent criminalized this matter, was their wish to get rid of the phenomena of duel(l)ing, a form of ritualized violence. A legal resort was needed to settle insults, libel and slander in a peaceful way.

See Markku Peltonen The duel in early modern England - civility, politeness and honour (2003), Kevin MacAleer Dueling : the cult of honor in fin-de-siècle Germany (1994), Friedhelm Guttandin Das paradoxe Schicksal der Ehre - zum Wandel der adeligen Ehre und zur Bedeutung von Duell und Ehre für den monarchischen Zentralstaat (1993), Ute Frevert Ehrenmänner - das Duell in der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (1991), V.G. Kiernan The duel in European history - honour and the reign of aristocracy (1988), François Billacois Le duel dans la société française des XVIe-XVIIe siècles - essai de psychosociologie historique (1986), Robert Baldick The duel - a history of duelling (1965)

and as historical sources specifically concerning The Netherlands under the present Dutch Criminal Code Wetboek van Strafrecht 1881 W.M.H. Anten, W.M.H. Het verachtelijke en verderfelijke van het duel (1892), Binnert Philip de Beaufort Beschouwingen over het tweegevecht (1881) as well as, from before the current Dutch legislation J.J. van Hees van Berkel Iets over de wetgeving betrekkelijk het tweegevecht en de beleedigingen (1842).

However, in the era before the Rule of Law, slander and libel towards the upper class also had the (rather primitive) social function of opposition from the upcoming bourgeois class against the aristocratic establishment (e.g. pornography featuring the French queen Marie-Antoinette etc.): see about that the lemma on Grub Street and also the latest book of Robert Darnton "The Devil in the Holy Water" (2010, on libel and slander in pre-revolutionary France).

As the book of Darnton shows, England was (then) a safe haven from where critical publications on the situation in France where published by Frenchmen in exile, and also smuggled across The Channel.

There was some change in the text of this Dutch law roundabout 1978, I remember. I have to check it and I will probably come back on this later tonight.

=> Please note that I am not blocked here on the English Wikipedia (fortunately just temporarily) now because of these alleged "slander", but because of a remark related to my impossibility to defend myself against false accusations that now were parroted here on the English Wikipedia by JZ85 and Grimbeert.

=> But I have to remind you that all parties were urged to stop discussing the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion, on the English Wikipedia. So I ask you to write about this and what you suggest about the Wikipedia Guideline very carefully, so that it can not be taken for the intended "fallout", and in more general terms to make clear that it is relevant for the English Wikipedia, or Wikipedias in general. --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan, the reason you are blocked was under the assumption of foul play in self defense: referaals to catch 22 were made and that is why you were blocked. This would in fact be inlawfull according to the above criminal code. Wikipedia has different guidelines, but I suppose we could (and maybe should) make an argument for adding the denial of catch 22. It seems a more than reasonable idea that would in fact counteract misuse of admin tools, as well as miscarriage of admins and facilitate the easier deduction of the real wrongdoers in question. I would like to add that this migt be seen as fallout, however, it seems that a critical analysis of the wikipedia guidelines is in order and should never be punished by a block as long as it is sincere. And this is. --Faust (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Faust, indeed a critical analysis of the Wikipedia Guidelines is in order and I agree that it should never be punished by a block as long as it is sincere. There is still the chance however that it would be perceived as that "fallout", and a debate about that might mean a revival of the issue (the so called "Dutch drama"). Question: if someone does not want to hear (about) something anymore, does it matter then if someone else plays a false tune or a delight for the ears? --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets drop it here. I'll simply move to an examination of the guidelines and see what I can do. --Faust (talk) 19:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.k. In the meantime, I found how the Dutch law was changed, as I remembered, indeed, in the year 1978. My memory served me well...

Before 1978 the definition of the crime of "laster" in the Dutch Criminal Code was: "Hij die het misdrijf van smaad (...) pleegt ingeval het bewijs der waarheid van het te laste gelegde feit is toegelaten, wordt, indien hij dit bewijs niet levert en de telastelegging tegen beter weten is geschied(...)." About this change in 1978 concerning the element of "wetende dat" (knowing that) see A.L.J.M. Janssens Strafbare belediging (1998), § 8.4.2.3 "Wetende dat" en laster, pp. 156-159.--JanDeFietser (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, especially the 'indien hij dit bewijs niet levert'. Thanks! --Faust (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was the text of the law before 1978. Since then, the formula is "Hij die het misdrijf van smaad of smaadschrift pleegt, wetende dat het te last gelegde feit in strijd met de waarheid is(...)". --JanDeFietser (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2010 (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).

JanDeFietser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After a pause, I request a lift or shortening of the block. There was NO infringement, NO continuing of the nl.wiki dispute from my side after the message of Uncle G. This blocking is NOT justified at all by the facts. My explanation for what happened when user Faust was blocked turned out completely right. After the lies of JZ85 on 23rd July, another Dutch user, Grimbeert, arrived on 25th July, only to launch here the false accusations that I had to endure as well on the Dutch Wikipedia without being allowed to defend myself against these false accusations and stir up the so called "Dutch drama". See the user history of Grimbeert. Acting that way is not sincere and not in good faith. By this machiavellian machination here on the English Wikipedia, I was also denied defence against the false accusations of JZ85 - as well as his ridiculous exaggerations: according to him the Dutch Wikipedia has only 34 editors? (my wikimail was blocked in September after I adressed only 17 users about the tragic failure of NLArbcom...). In the meantime on the weblog Wiki-'Safe' (see above and the remark of Count Iblis) an ominous message appeared in which was boasted about a succesful "lobby" to have me blocked on the English Wikipedia. That message is filled with the same false accusations to which I was not allowed to defend myself on the Dutch Wikipedia. "Refugees" from the Dutch Wikipedia should not be confronted here on the English Wikipedia with the same sort of scenes.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Besides, this unblock request appears to confirm the reason for your block, i.e., disruptively continuing disputes from nlwiki on this Wikipedia.  Sandstein  19:37, 28 July 2010 (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).

JanDeFietser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not continuing a dispute from the Dutch Wikipedia but pleading that such scenes should kept at bay here

Decline reason:

No, it's pretty clear that reading the section above this one that you are continuing those disputes. We don't want those arguments here - this has been explained to you and you persisted with your edits. TNXMan 14:10, 29 July 2010 (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.

I'll leave the request for another admin, but I note that the easiest way to stop a dispute from any other wikipedia project from coming here would be to NOT mention that project, NOT discuss it in oblique terms (as with "certain other smaller project", for example) and to avoid all discussion of the issue itself. Yet I keep seeing it brought up here, and I can't understand why. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just being brought up here. The phrase was also rather eagerly used to describe my entirely unrelated hasty misunderstanding of an honest unblock request by User:Faust as well. I'm not defending my bad decision, which in of itself I was legitimately called out on, but good gravy there seems to be some real eagerness to bring this subject up whenever possible. - Vianello (Talk) 03:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eppur si muove. --192.87.123.154 (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

immediately after his conviction, Galileo was heard to mutter “Eppur si muove” ..... “And yet it moves” Off2riorob (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP locates to the Royal Library. Apparently they had to look up the phrase in a book.--Atlan (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well .. I had to Google it .. nice looking library. Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JanDeFietser! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Chen Pei-Kung - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Chloé Graftiaux requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles – see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Jan,

On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Text_on_User:JanDeFietser I've asked the administrators to look into the dutch text on your user page.

Mvg, NL_Bas (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  20:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This concerns the legal threats you made here.  Sandstein  20:51, 22 August 2010 (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).

JanDeFietser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no legal threat at all: look before you leap. Unblock. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You asked the other user to discuss the matter with you in court. You are entirely in your rights to do so; please wait to request unblock until after the two of you have met in court to settle the matter. If you decide not to meet him in court after all, feel free to request unblock, but make sure it's very clear that you are not now seeking legal action, and have no plans to seek legal action in the future. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (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.

In addition to the legal threat, which is the reason for the block, I don't understand how bringing disputes from other wikis here helps to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. For the reasons given at the ANI thread, the reason for the indef block should really have been that the user is clearly dedicated to continuing his Dutch disputes here, even after having been warned against and blocked for doing so; accordingly, the block should be maintained even if the threats are withdrawn.  Sandstein  21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock request... I think a 'legal threat' is not present at all, neither is any 'legal action' taken so far, let alone that there is a threat to take such action. When one asks someone if things should/could be taken to court that is just a question, not a threat. A legal action would be when there would be a court session after all. I think on these arguments one can't decide that there is any legal threat or legal action at all at present time. Correct me if i'm wrong please. Tjako (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGAL is pretty clear; even the threat of legal action is not permitted, whether or not any legal action has been taken. This is necessary to prevent people from using legal threats to intimidate other users on Wikipedia, as well as to protect Wikipedia from whatever might actually happen in court. This user has indicated that she is considering legal action, and WP:LEGAL requires that she refrain from using Wikipedia until she either completes the lawsuit, or unambiguously withdraws the threat. The question may be moot, though, for the reasons mentioned by User:Sandstein- even without the legal threats, it isn't okay to drag her Dutch wiki dispute here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's accusing his opponent of breaking the law in an effort to stifle opposition. Even if you want to try and Wikilawyer the issue, he's certainly breaking the spirit of the policy. Add in that he is continuing to bring his Dutch Wikipedia drama here, the user continues to be disruptive. I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect Jan's unblock requests will go farther if he promises to drop both the wikilawyering and leaves his Dutch nonsense on the Dutch Wikipedia or at Meta. Resolute 21:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Where is JanDeFietser stating to "considering legal action"??
2. Where is the threat??
3. I don't want to lawyer, but as far as i read into the past conflicts it happened on Dutch wikipedia and is not relevant here on the English one
4. Earlier debate here was stopped already in an earlier stage of this conflict but then User:Bas started again bringing up matters, not JanDeFietser.
5. JanDeFietser should be able to defend against false accusations at his address here.
6. The one who imports conflicts here is not JanDeFietser.
7. The spirit of Wikipedia is AGF (assume good faith!), this also applies to JanDeFietser.
8. I have seen not one valid argument for blocking him here, please know your own policies here and behave in that spirit please.
9. Blocking JanDeFietser is assuming bad faith (and i think - when i read your arguments - u probably are not fully aware of all ins and outs of this complicated matter.
10. I have the feeling a hunt takes place on this user, especially since a few dutch wikipedians are deliberately trying (through an external blog!) to prevent JanDeFietser to contribute here and on other wiki's.

Resuming: The true spirit of Wikipedia is that it is a free encyclopedia, and not a forum for cyberpesting, haunting or stalking. So please be wise, and unblock. If JanDeFietser would ever misbehave here he always can be critizised on valid arguments or eventually be blocked again if he disrupts this wiki. With high regards, Tjako (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of this case is consistent with what Tjako wrote here. From what I read about this issue, there exists a real life dispute with legal dimensions dating back to the 1990s. Jan has been targeted on the Dutch Wikipedia by some editors who are involved in that real life dispute. Then I do think we can ask Jan not to react to any provocations himself here on Wikipedia. Instead, he should contact an Admin whenever he feels provoked by someone about these sensitive non-Wikipedia issues. That Admin can then take appropriate measures. Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to support both Tjako and Count Iblis in their assessment of this case. It is particularly clear from this statement: "he is a "refugee" from the Dutch Wikipedia, where he has been banned in November 2009 for a so called "legal threat" that there wasn't,". Thereby he refutes all allegations made by this 'NL_Bas' user. Since there as been no source for the allegation that JanDeFietser made a legal threat, I would like to ask his ban to be lifted forthwith.

Because the above is the case I think the trolling of NL_Bas has been proven, his transferring issues from the nl.wiki to the en.wiki has been proven and his slanderous remarks have been proven. That is why I would like to move for a permanent ban for this user, who is slandering a productive user on the en.wiki in an attempt to hide his mistakes made on the nl.wiki because of his POV. All this is proven by the lack of sourcing for that 'legal threat'. To not only falsify, but also verify my statement I would like to quote the remark which lead to the ban in question: "Bas, I can provide evidence for your serious misbehaviour and even criminal behavior that you (perhaps do not) want, but now get off my back here on the English wiki and play your sly games on the Dutch wiki, or defend your behaviour on my weblog where things can discussed freely Bas, or in court for that matter, but NOT HERE."

If we read this carefully we can see that:

1)It is JanDeFietser who does not want the issue repeated here. The User NL_Bas is recreating the issue here (as can be shown by bringing the issue up on the mod noticeboard.

2)We can also see that JanDeFietser is saying he CAN give evidence, but nowhere that he will do so. He is clearly saying that NL_Bas should talk about this elsewhere, but not here. One of the examples given is a court. This is clearly not a threat to take him to court.

I will await the reversal of the previous judgment.

--Faust (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2010 (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).

JanDeFietser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I certainly did NOT "ask the other user to discuss the matter with me in court" - read carefully what I wrote exactly: I wrote that the issue should be discussed elsewhere, but not on the English Wikipedia, conform the decision of Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 ": you do not know the meaning of the expression "for that matter"? The idiom "for that matter" can be replaced by 'in fact' or 'actually': this means that I would not object or prevent him going to court, if Basvb really would be sincerely convinced that he is "accused falsely" (I will refrain from a material comment on this sly complaint of Basvb, who is the person who concocted the absurd ban on the Dutch wiki on November 6th 2009, that is still pending now after more than 9 months, while I cannot address the NL-Arbcom because my email is blocked..). That is NO "legal threat" at all! The English wiki nor its admins should not make itself completely ridiculous by upholding an overhaste reaction

Decline reason:

Until you clearly and unambiguously indicate that you do not intend to take these matters to court, your editing privileges cannot be reinstated. Please either indicate this without ambiguity and stop arguing that you said it at all, or wait until legal proceedings conclude. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 23 August 2010 (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.

I think it is clear that his message on AN/I breaks the spirit of WP:LEGAL and does amount to a threat. To put it another way; Jan was warned about all of this. He was asked not to bring up nl.wiki disputes and to avoid those long legalese-style replies. OK, NL_bas brought up the issue - but he did not have to reply the way he did, dragging up matters once again. I think the defence by Faust and Tjako is a nice gesture but this is most easily sorted out by Jan retracting the statements he made about court action so the blocking admin is satisfied there is no legal action implied --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's assume that everyone acting against JanDeFietser is wrong. Even if that were true, the unblock requests above are misguided. The block reason was for using language (diff at ANI) that can be interpreted as a legal threat: "and even criminal behavior" ... "or in court for that matter". I hope JanDeFietser continues contributing at Wikipedia, but for that to happen a clear statement that unequivocally withdraws the quoted text must occur quickly. I have not followed the background to this issue, but apparently there is a long-term dispute outside en.wp. Admins very properly should decisively prevent even a hint of that dispute being imported here, and participants must remove any contentious text from userspace, and must carefully avoid language that may suggest legal consequences. This issue may have gone past a point where repair is achievable, but a possible way forward would be for JanDeFietser to correct the issues mentioned, and to give a statement regarding how they would respond if related events were to recur (hint: the only satisfactory resolution from en.wp's point of view is for the external disputes to never be publicly mentioned here). Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JanDeFietser, this is in reply to your e-mail. Your personal information and professional qualifications are of no interest to me, and neither is your dispute with others. What matters to me is that you disrupt this encyclopedia by making legal threats ("you even committed a criminal act with your threats on November 6th (art. 284 Sr)", "[your] criminal behavior", "or defend your behaviour ... in court" [1]), and by continuing a real-world and/or Dutch Wikipedia dispute on this Wikipedia ([2], [3]), even after the community clearly told you to drop it. I will not unblock you until the legal threat is unambiguously withdrawn, as per the declining admins above, and I am entirely convinced that you will stop pursuing that dispute here, as per Johnuniq above.  Sandstein  08:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandstein,

I can grasp your reasons and your reasoning, however I disagree wholeheartedly. The reason I disagree is clearly visible to all. The user JanDeFietser is now being blocked on en.wiki for reasons that lie outside en.wiki and that is simply improper behavior. The user JanDeFietser is continuously stating that he does not want this argument here, while the user NL-Bas keeps going on about this argument here. However, you are blocking JanDeFietser. That means the decision is based on reasons OUTSIDE of the en.wiki.

Now, I can grasp how this takes place, but please be aware that this regulatory block is aiding NL-Bas in his attempt to deny his missteps by stating JanDeFietser can post on the en.wiki again if and only if he will drop some imagined charge, UNRELATED to en.wiki.

This all is very strange, to block somebody for something outside of en.wiki, by the request of somebody who is breaking all the rules on the en.wiki AND in doing so aiding said rule breaker to deny serious missteps, even though this rule breaker is imagining a legal threat.

Please, consider what I am saying here.

--Faust (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have said this before and administrators have explained it before. We are going in circles. The paths forward for JdF have been made clear. Either he follows them or he doesn't. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well that Faust was also listed as a sanctioned editor:

• User:JanDeFietser
• User:Faust
• USer:JZ85
• User:Theobald Tiger
• User:MoiraMoira
• User:Hazardous Matt
• User:Grimbeert

...so I'm surprised Faust appears to wish to spin this out. I felt we made it very clear with JdF and Faust's previous blocks that the en.wiki community was not prepared to tolerate this nonsense. Take it to meta or OTRS, as you've repeatedly been told to do - but if you carry on this nonsense here I'll block you as well, Faust. TFOWR 11:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to your following e-mail, which I reproduce here as per my e-mail policy on my user page:

I see that you do not understand the legla intricacies of the situation: if Basvb thinks that I accuse him falsely, HE is the one that has to go to court. Not me. And I made alreday clear that I do not object against it (whic is no "legal threat" at all), because I am confident that my words were and are completely legitimate. Can you urge Basvb to start the proceedings against me as soon as possible, to shorten this very strange block on the English wiki? I can give Basvb my full address, no problem. I think it is reasonable that he has to start his proceedings in two weeks. Otherwise this peculiar block on the English wiki should be lifted immediately.

This makes clear that you still believe that the dispute between you and the other user requires legal action, even if initiated by the other user, to resolve. Moreover, you make clear you do not intend to cease making accusations against the other user on en.wiki until they take legal action against you. This is false. We require you to remove your accusations against others not because these accusations are either wrong or false (we neither know nor care about that), but because you are not allowed to misuse this Wikipedia as a forum for your grievances unrelated to this Wikipedia. As has been explained above, you are not allowed to edit this Wikipedia as long as you insist on attempting to do so, and as long as you make legal threats, which is what this amounts to. Your unblock request is declined and any future e-mails by you will not be answered. You may still appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee, see WP:BASC.  Sandstein  11:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Sandstein said and to respond to your email to me, I concur with him, and would add that blocks for legal threats are for the protection of all editors who may become embroiled in any potential legal action, as well as that of Wikipedia itself. If you are not willing to unambiguously state that you do not intend to take legal action, you may not edit here until any legal proceedings you choose to initiate are complete. You may, as Sandstein stated, appeal to the Arbitration Committee, but if you really don't intend to take legal action, your simplest way forward is just to say so. While you leave it ambiguous, however, the block cannot be lifted. We don't care whose accusations were "false", or anything like that—if there's a threat of legal action, a block is placed until it is withdrawn. The block has nothing to do with the merits of any potential case, only with the existence of the threat to file it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"if there is a threat of legal action, a block is placed until it is withdrawn." Now the peculiar history of the Dutch wiki, caused by ignorance of admins in legal matters, seems to repeat itself here on the English wiki. Mind that there was NO such "threat" at all, NOR on the Dutch wiki NOR on the English wiki, NOR anywhere off-wiki (in the meantime I already requested this morning a block for one malicious user, one of those Dutch wikihounds operating here, who yesterday falsely informed the "community" here on the English wiki about alleged but however NON-existent, so called "legal threats" by me that there NEVER have been - a chimera.

These are serious questions: How can a "threat of legal action" be withdrawn when it was not there? (Can someone lose what he does / did not have? Can someone stop or continue what he does / did not do? Can someone give what he doesn't have? ) --JanDeFietser (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very disappointing response. Please consider my comments at "07:53, 23 August 2010" above. Before formulating a further response, may I suggest that you consider what your original comments meant, and what you now want, and how you would respond if ever a similar situation arises. If you want to edit at en.wiki again (and I would like you to continue as an editor), you need to write a convincing statement to clarify whether or not you have any intention of becoming involved in legal proceedings with any editor or entity related to Wikipedia. You are not in a debate where pointing out the logical impossibility of a situation will achieve any positive result. In addition, I suggest you outline what response you would take if anyone ever mentions the problems underlying the current situation (hint: you should undertake to never again respond except by mail to an admin or arbcom). Johnuniq (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know I should probably not interrupt, however, I think it would help if the mods and admins on the en.wiki would promise to block all users harassing JanDeFietser on the en.wiki about the issues on the nl.wiki. I bet if that promise is given JanDeFietser will have no problem with not responding and just sening an email or something to an admin or mod on the en.wiki. Is that a good idea, or what? --Faust (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is something of a given; I heavily suspect if Jan had not weighed in so quickly in the AN/I thread that user would have been told of the ban on discussing it, an admin would have reviewed the user page material if appropriate and this would be over. If said user had kept on the nl.wiki nonsense he/she would be facing a block too. Admins have been clear, Faust; Jan must be unequivocal in saying that no legal action is going on, pending or threatened. The nl.wiki nonsense is a separate matter entirely --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're all used to situations in which people threaten or imply legal action that they have no intention of taking. But Jan and a few others seem to be indicating that there is a real-world legal action involved in this case. If that's the case, Jan won't be able to make the usual statement that there is no legal action, but my understanding of WP:LEGAL is that the parties should not edit Wikipedia until the legal dispute has concluded. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of the legal dispute could well make things much worse from the POV of WP:LEGAL. Suppose for argument's sake that a judge rules in favor of Jan and awards him a restraining order against people who are harassing him, including on online venues such as here on Wikipedia. But then exercising such a restraining order often requires one to give the party against whom you want to exercise it, a warning. If that warning is ignored, you go to the authorities who can then see the evidence that your space had been invaded, and a warning had been issued and ignored.

Obviously, this would move the situation much farther into the legal domain. But here on Wikipedia we do have solutions for problems like this. One can e.g. impose no-interaction restrictions against editors. Such restrictions would make any legal developments in this case moot. The situation now is that Jan's problem with WP:LEGAL is purely "Wiki-academic" and does not cause any actual problems. Solutions such as a no-interaction restriction would prevent any legal issues from coming up when Jan is editing here. Count Iblis (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, no one has harassed JdF since his previous block. Bas reported that he wanted content removed that was inappropriate for the English Wikipedia. This was done (and appropriately so). Bas has made some 20 edits this year on the english wikipedia, mostly iw; 3 of these edits are an ANI report and the required ANI notification of a participant. He did not participate in the previous enwp dispute with JdF (he was only a subject of debate, amongst the infighting crowd). People are smoking if they consider that harassment on the english wikipedia. I see no Basvb here, I see no JZ85, no grimbeert or theobold tiger etc. I only see JdF, Tjako and Faust (and a single edit, single purpose taunt account), in a one-sideded wikicrash. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't this a dispute that is mainly going on off-Wikipedia, on blogs and also in real life? I'm not saying that it is exactly like this, but it could be that JdF is being harassed (or having the feeling that he is harassed) elsewhere by people who then occasionally turn up here. The current block of JdF is for JdF having refused to give a broad guarantee that he won't take legal actions in any such off-Wiki disputes. That doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Such a rule would imply that someone could steal my car, turn up at my talk page and then I would be blocked because, obviously, I would refuse to rule out persuing legal options to get my car back. Common sense would suggest that we keep such disputes off Wikipedia by asking the editors to not fight out their disputes here. But asking one party to drop legal charges in that off-Wiki dispute actually amounts to interfering in that very dispute, causing it to flare up and stay here. Simply asking the editors to not talk to each other regarding the disputes does the job precisely right, i.m.o. Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly. Besides: any human being in most democratic countries has the right to ask any legal court for settling a conflict with another human being. Besides: I did not see any legal threats against any Wikipediae from JdF, and also not any legal threat from JdF on any Wikipedia to another user of Wikipedia. Just a bunch of accusations against JdF, and I can understand why JdF gets angry about that, because it is a low way of getting him off those Wikipediae on rubbing in his nose some severe false accusations. Sorry, that is my p.o.v. and i dont want get into all nasty details because i don't want risk a block for interfering in a continuing complex case. And NO, I am not a fan of JdF, but I just see a serious form of cyberhaunting going on - against this user (JdF in this case - but earlier we saw something similar with User:D.A. Borgdorff and with User:Guido den Broeder) who contributed (be it with/due to/because of/with/in a different style of contributing - but even then: all birds sing like they are born) very well before he was banned, so i still assume good faith. Addendum: WP:LEGAL states very clearly: Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved. I think the blocking admin misunderstood completely what JdF told on [ANI here]. Regards, Tjako (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tjako; I really feel you should just drop this - I can't help feeling you are barely hanging on by a thread after a number f direct warnings. On the subject of WP:LEGAL; Bas, I can provide evidence for your serious misbehaviour and even criminal behavior that you (perhaps do not) want, is a pretty clear legal threat. Look, it has been made clear what is needed from JDF - how about we just stop commenting and give him a chance to respond to that. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 01:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmorton166: With all respect, but suppose i say to somebody: "it is illegal to steal my bycicle and u stole it" i can be blocked because i make a 'legal threat' ???? That can't be true! A legal threat would be if i said: "I am gonna sue u for stealing my bycicle". Tjako (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All we need is for JdF to assure us that there is no intention of entering into legal action regarding any person or entity connected with Wikipedia, and to assure us that there will never be a public statement on Wikipedia that might indicate an intention to enter legal action, and that if ever someone mentions the underlying dispute, then JdF will not respond except, perhaps, by emailing an admin or arbcom. In summary, there must be an assurance that no reference to external disputes or legal action will occur on Wikipedia, and if other people breach this rule, there must be no public response. The longer this drags on, the more satisfaction JdF's opponents will gain.

Re the car thief scenario: If a car thief turns up, do not use Wikipedia to threaten them. If facing a troll, contact an admin. If you lose control and use Wikipedia to tell the thief that you will engage in legal action, simply withdraw that threat because you actually have no proof that you are talking to the thief (it might be their trolling kid brother). So, withdraw the threat against the Wikipedia editor and take whatever action is required to regain your car but do not use Wikipedia for that purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to let you know right now, I'm not going to block people at your request. If you're claiming that someone is behaving in a threatening manner toward you, and that you've somehow been a victim of a complex attack, you really need to contact the arbitration committee at this point. I'm not just going to take you at your word and block someone, not even if you ask repeatedly. ArbCom will accept email correspondence, and at this point, that may be your best way forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Good morning, if there is any real fear for legal hassle concerning my statement on my userpage on which I explained my presence on the English wiki, please recognize that it is for Basvb to assure us if there is any intention form his side of entering into legal action, and to assure us etc.

Please also recognize that concerning any alleged wrongdoings on my side, I can not be the plaintiff against myself (the Dutch judge would reject the case as a sheer frivolity when I would initiate proceedings for a "not-falsely accusing by me"....).

Basvb is in this situation the party who has to initiate a lawsuit, or not, before a court. When he insists to be accused falsely, he seeks a legal remedy (or not), and if successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of him as the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order (e.g., an order for damages), or in favor of me after my defense that these accusations are not false at all, because of his own behaviour on November 6th 2009. So the statement that is demanded from me, should be demanded from him.

I informed Sandstein and you about my name IRL and my wherabouts, so a summons can be send if Basvn wants to walk that path.

On the other hand, if "the community" here insists that it is me who has to initiate proceedings so that finally the block can be lifted, then I is reasonable that I have to be informed about HIS name IRL and whereabouts. But if his name and whereabouts are not provided, this block for a "legal threat" that there was not there stays eternally?

This exposes the absurdity of this block.

By the way, I delivered already a clear statement on November 19th. This statement was put on my user page on the Dutch wiki, without the consequence of the promised unblocking however. In spite of the requested statement that I issued already more tha 9 months ago, I am still blocked. And my clear statement was removed by NL-Arbcom member Robert (who in the meantime seems to have left the Dutch wiki, I guess because of the bad atmosphere...). So, I ask because of this experience, how reliable is this Wikipedia-procedure of extorting such statements from a user? Already in June 2009 I wrote to NL-Arbcom explicitly that legal proceedings from my side were not to be expected (Arbcom-member Basvb maliciously withheld this important information on November 6th to JZ85, who then blocked me without any investigation and without any defense from my side; this absurd block is still going now, and this very same Basvb arrived here for a game of interwikihouding: if he was sincerely concerned about my statement on my userpage about my presence on the English wikipedia, he could have asked me about it, which he did not do - to my opinion it was also a malicious move that he refrained from just asking me, but perhaps his bad conscience made him reluctant?)

My question now is: Do you and other users here recognize the here exposed absurdity of this situation?

By the way, you write "I'm not just going to take you at your word and block someone". That sounds wise, Please note however that I explicitly hinted you to let this user defend himself first - that is a diligent procedure that seems to be unknown on the Dutch wiki (but offering him this possibility that seems unknown on the Dutch wiki might turn out a formality, since this Dutch wikihounder Banq(k)uo is unable to deliver any evidence of any "legal threat" by me, wherever and however). I am looking forward to the answer if people now recognize the absurdity of this situation now. --JanDeFietser (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are saying that you are not willing to retract your legal threat, and are not willing to keep your real-life problems out of your interactions on English Wikipedia. That's fine, and a choice you have every right to make- it is entirely possible to live a long, happy, healthy life and never edit Wikipedia. There doesn't seem to be anything more for us to talk about here, in that case. I wish you luck in your future endeavors. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)

@ FisherQueen: you write "it sounds" but maybe you are some kind of deaf: again, there was no "legal threat" that I can retract. Tell me now, dear FisherQueen, before we start thinking about whatever kind of life, have you stopped beating your spouse? - and, just to check if you know what you are writing about: which "real-life problems" then?--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ FisherQueen (because of your silence - perhaps too busy with still beating your poor spouse?) see concerning this logical "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-problem Loaded question and Loaded_question

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

1. "Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."

2. "No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

1. "Have you ever beaten your wife?"

2. "If so, are you still doing so?"

In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise. --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please pardon my intrusion as I was asked to look at this thread based my editing past in matters of logic. I am not an admin nor have any special rights, though I have been editing for about 4 years without ever being blocked. I do not know the backstory of this dispute, but have only read what I see here. I admit I have had to skim a bit, but some important points stand out to me.

• Jan has been asked to state equivocally that he withdraws any threat of legal action and that he never intends to pursue any such action against another user.
• Jan has responded by stating he never made any threat of legal action.
• No evidence has been produced that he ever made any threat of legal action by admins who blocked him (so far).

It seems rather straightforward to me. If Jan never made any legal threats, he cannot be asked to withdraw them. I can understand his refusal to simply lie and say he withdraws a non-existent threat as a matter of honor and honesty, as it is very similar to a false confession under coercion. Seriously, There are FOUR LIGHTS! One may, perhaps, still request that Jan declare he will never pursue such actions against another Wikipedia user.

Is it therefore acceptable if Jan were to state the following? "I solemnly swear I made no threat of legal action, and I promise to never make such threats against another Wikipedia user in the future." Legitimus (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, quite a lot of people do not grasp at all what is and what is not a "threat", and therefore also not what is and what is not a "legal threat". E.g. see above what user Tjako wrote (but he was a step in the right direction, however): @Tmorton166: "A legal threat would be if i said: "I am gonna sue u for stealing my bycicle"." (Tjako 01:36, 25 August 2010). But even when someone says only this, that is also not yet a "threat", but just an announcement or a prediction (that might turn out to be untrue as well).

A threat is "Give me my bicycle back, or I resort to unniceties (beat your brains out, if you have any, etc.)!". A threat implies that someone wants another person to act in some way (in that example: the delivery of the claimed bicycle), and the intention to enforce this desired act with the foresight of something unpleasant and unwanted (in that example: littering the street with cranium content).

By the way, NOT ONLY am I still not unblocked on that other wiki in spite of my clear declaration of November 19th, 2009 (absolutely unacceptable but it is the true state of affairs... - but WHAT will happen then here on the English wiki: now the very same tragic mistake has already been made by Sandstein by blocking me here on the pretext of a so called "legal threat" that there wasn't, will then also be that other tragic mistake of not-unblocking me will be repeated here on the English wiki as well?), please notice ALSO this very salient detail: the users that I had (not) "threatened", did NOT perceive any threat themselves at all...

Yes, there exists literature about this logical / philosophical / legal topic (that is: coercion - and the coercion here is from the side of persons that want me to state something from which they seem not to be aware of the consequences: if some person would "convince" me with the same "arguments" to consent in having sexual intercourse, that would be rape...). For the moment, I guess none of the users here that uttered about a "legal threat" by me have ever read any word of that. I am willing to hear that my guess is wrong (but also to bet that it is exactly correct).

We are here (supposed) to Share Knowledge, or aren't we? As I already wrote when I protested against the block: "Look before you leap" (and that is also a "threat" perhaps then...? God forsake it is not...)--JanDeFietser (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One last attempt: Please take the time to review my comments above. This is not a debate where your arguments will impress anyone: you are not being asked to confirm that you issued a legal threat; you are being asked to unequivocally state your current intention regarding legal action that may involve anyone associated with Wikipedia, and to describe how you will respond if the external troubles are ever mentioned on en.wiki again. I advise you to delete your last two messages; if you do, please delete this reply as well. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Johnnuniq: I still wonder WHAT "legal action" you are talking / writing about? ;First, there is an enormous misunderstanding by Sandstein (who does not seem to recognize what is a "threat" and what not), others and perhaps you as well. Second, there is now also that vicious FALSE accusation added by that intriguant Banqkuo that showed up to make things worse (I suppose this is the user named Banquo on the Dutch wiki). If Basvb persists that some words from me were illegitimate, the onus agendi is with him, not with me.

=> I will think about your question how you I will respond if what you call "the external troubles are ever mentioned on en.wiki again" - be aware that my answer, or perhaps even a not-answering as well if I choose to and they (or others) are sly enough, could be taken as a kind of "invitation" to interwikihounds to continue harassing me and bring me into troubles here again.

Please, check my edit history and see that I am not a troublemaker at all. Without the "ius agendi", the right of every person to address a judge if necessary, all other rights are useless. Please answer me: may the abdication of this essential right be exorted under duress after a misunderstanding and even false accusations of a trumped up "legal threat", though it wasn't there? --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, on a good faith assumption that it has not been made clear the elements that appear to be a threat - here is the most overt one.

Bas, I can provide evidence for your serious misbehaviour and even criminal behavior that you (perhaps do not) want

The fact you keep quoting legal terms and other "rights" is probably not helping allay concerns. Please bear in mind there is no right to edit - you can be blocked at the whim of the community.

To be absolute clear the community has upheld the requirement that you must explicitly state no legal action will be taken, threatened or discussed. The community has indicated it is not all that interested in whether you can show that you didn't make a direct threat or not - it has decided that there was enough of a percieved threat to ask you this question.

In addition the community has banned you from discussing the Dutch WP issues here on en.wiki - and editors on this page have asked you to acknowledge that. If Dutch users come here to harrass you because they see you under such a ban then an admin will block them for that very reason. Consider this, from a logical perspective, whatever you say about these issues the hounders clearly know they can get a rise out of you and count on you to get yourself blocked - it strikes me in your best interests to outright ignore any more hounding and report it to AN/I for others to deal with.

Put another way; WP is not a democracy, no amount of arguing is going to change that (for better or worse) :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly to Legitimus I was asked by JdF to weigh in based on my edits of an article about statements regarding "the present King of France", which are (possibly) meaningless because the subject does not exist. To quote: "I am blocked for an alleged "legal threat" that there was not there at all, and now I am asked to retract this "threat"..." He seems to read the terms of the block as analogous to "You say the King of France is bald; please retract this statement" and objects that he cannot retract a statement he didn't make. My reading of the terms of the block is that it does not request a retraction of anything, rather a denial, which JdF could quite easily do without admitting any threat - analogous to "Please confirm that you will never say the present King of France is bald", an answer to which contains no implication that any such statement was ever made in the past. (Aside: as an impartial observer it amuses me that the debate has descended to such levels of absurdity.) Hairy Dude (talk) 12:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the users above all my sincere thanks for their reactions and food four thought. If you don't mind I call it a day now, to (sort of) control this, and wait some time if perhaps a wise idea might show up. I go for a ride now |

This user is a proud cyclist.

. --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, what guarantee will there be that I will be unblocked indeed after issuing whatever "confirmation" or statement? I am really very very sorry that I have to repeat this (but otherwise my reluctance can, as I suppose for so far, not be understood here by "the community" on the English Wikipedia): I was blocked on November 6th on the Dutch Wikipedia for a so called "legal threat" that there wasn't, and in spite of my clear statement on November 19th, now after more than 9 months I am still blocked and my questions about this weird case remain unanswered, nevertheless.

Again, I am very very sorry that it seems necessary to mention this again, since in the earlier discussion July I became quickly aware of the objections against it. Precisely my awareness of these objections brought me to my reply to Basvb in which I told him to get off my back, that Sandstein (almost certainly lacking sufficient legal knowledge) here on the English Wikipedia also mistook for a "legal threat", and strangely that awareness of me is now being punished by this blocking: maybe I was just too civilized (and Sandstein trigger happy??), but I fear that otherwise my reluctance concerning the desired "confirmation" cannot be understood - at least at this moment I can not imagine another way of making the dilemma clear. Once bitten, twice shy. A blocking for WP:NLT only applies when there is a legal threat. There was no legal threat, nor on the Dutch Wikipedia nor on the English Wikipedia nor off-wiki, and the principle of WP:NLT is not to be abused to extort some statement or "confirmation" from a user: upholding of the block seems against all reason.

Also again, wise ideas from anyone are welcome. --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before; it doesn't really matter if you thought it was a legal threat or not, to us it looked like a veiled legal threat. You were asked to clarify that explictly. I'd point out that yet again bringing up your irrelevant nl.wiki block and being uncivil about the blocking admin (who's actions were upheld by other admins) is not going to help your cause. Your being asked to say something like there is no legal proceedings threatened, pending our underway relating to Wikipedia and en.wiki editors There is no request for you to admit to a legal threat etc. but to clarify the ambiguous message left on AN/I. -Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query, should a threat not at least be proven before it can be retracted? For how can one retract a not given threat? And if such a threat was not proven (as I think is the case and as Jan states is the case, and can be shown is the case, as I did above), was not the block given prematurely and even unjustly? --Faust (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@tmorton166: I do not understand yet what you mean with "and being uncivil about the blocking admin". I mentioned the overhaste reaction of Sandstein; I believe there's really nothing uncivil about that from my side (when I say "trigger happy" that was not meant to insult). What I try to make clear: WP:NLT should apply ONLY IF there is a "legal threat".

=> The rhetorical figure permissio is NOT at all an equivalent of the rhetorical figure ad baculum.

Neither makes it sense to call it sophistically "a veiled legal threat" (as I said: my words are mistaken by users who lack sufficient legal knowledge, and perhaps knowledge about rhetorics as well), since it is not even that (a threat consists of two essential elements: there must be a desired act and there must be the foresight of a retaliation if that expressed desire will not be fulfilled: where are these two essential elements in what I wrote when I told Basvb to get off my back?). The block by Sandstein was unjustified and it is now abused to extort from me a statement on things IRL, while the people who demand this statement from me probably have not the slightest idea what they are even talking about, and mingling or interfering with (if you sincerely think that you DO have any idea, you can refute me easily by showing that and telling it here).

There might be rule given for blocking a user for a "legal threat" and there might be a rule that users who are proceeding IRL can be blocked during that proceeding until their case in IRL will be settled, but those two rules here are not under discussion.

The matter here is, a blocking of a user on wiki is not to be abused to extort an abdication of any off-wiki-rights, especially not the "ius agendi" (the right to iniate proceedings, or the right to defend oneself in a proceeding initiated by others) - and as I wrote above: without the "ius agendi" all other rights that person has or can have IRL would be completely worthless...).

If disputes that exist IRL between users can have no place on Wikipedia, neither may Wikipedia then start to play a role in those disputes, if they are there or not, by such unreasonable demands. When the two worlds must be separated, that separation must work then on both sides: Not only no "legal threats" to influence matters on Wikipedia, NOR wiki-threats (or duress by using a block to extort any statement etc.) to influence, or interfere in, any imbroglio that (perhaps) exists in IRL. And again I ask, what guarantee is there for an unblocking after giving a desired statement: my experience on the Dutch Wikipedia is unfortunately that untill now (since November 19) it was to no avail (and I sincerely hope that this can be explained by a lack of legal knowledge rather than bad faith of the admins).

Maybe you will get a (still) slight idea now what this is all about, by trying to answer this question that I ask you now: If there was a disclosure of user realnames on the Wikipedia, and this disclosure was paired with slander, is it not allowed to initiate proceedings about that, especially when the perpetrator was not an active Wikipedian but just an occasional outsider who specially opened an account on Wikipedia just for the pleasure of interfering and intriguing?

--JanDeFietser (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permissio (epitrope): surrender of a situation to the will of another; often for pity or irony. --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I personally would oppose unblocking you, even if you withdrew your legal threat, since you insisted on involving English Wikipedia in your dispute after you were asked not to, then reacted to objections with nearly a week of unhelpful rhetorical quibbling. I was just beginning to wonder whether it's time to simply lock this talk page, since it doesn't appear to be leading anywhere of practical use to the encyclopedia. As far as I can tell without being able to read Dutch, the folks there had similar experiences- Are you familiar with the English maxim, "It is madness to do the same thing and expect a different result?" But of course, I am only one person, and you might find someone else willing to unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ FisherQueen: Dear FisherQueen, I think it is better to show some more patience. To answer your question: I am not familiar with the English maxim that you mentioned, and I do not think that it applies here, since I am not doing the same thing. Maybe you overlook something? And are you familiar with the Farsi proverb خواستن توانستن است  ? --JanDeFietser (talk) 12:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to reach the ArbCom, but did not succeed. Isn't it possible to reach the Arbcom during a block? --JanDeFietser (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact ArbCom using the instructions here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 28 August 2010 (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).

JanDeFietser (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was no "Legal threat" by me at all, :1. not openly and neither veiled, : 2. not on the English Wikipedia NOR on another Wikipedia or even off-wiki. The rhetorical figure permissio that I used when I told Basvb to get off my back here on the English Wikipedia, precisely because of the objections here that came clear in July, is certainly NOT at all an equivalent of that rhetorical figure ad baculum. : Now this current block is abused to extort from me some desired "confirmation" on a topic outside the English Wikipedia. This is unreasonable and unacceptable. I want to continue working here without being harassed or hounded. My statement on my user page that Basvb somehow took offense of was removed in the meantime. Let us all respect and be satisfied with that new "status quo" and let me now continue editing. What is the value of the desired "statement"? On November 19th I provided, unfortunately to no avail, a clear statement on that other Wikipedia; that was first placed there on my user page and then removed and NO unblocking followed however, which makes me reluctant to issue whatever statement, especially under duress. --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It has been explained to you that you do not have to make a retraction to be unblocked. You do have to declare that you will not pursue legal action, you will not threaten to pursue legal action while editing en.wiki and you will avoid bringing disruptions not associated with the English Wikipedia to en.wiki. Arguing yourself out of this block is not an option; your only option is compliance. Tiderolls 17:20, 28 August 2010 (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.

Please understand that, at some point, posting unblock templates that do not address the issues will be deemed disruptive. This will result in you losing the ability to edit this page. I personally believe we have reached that point (and would understand the rationale of any administrator that would block your talk page access), but I also believe that revoking your talk page access should be a community decision. Please consider your actions carefully. Tiderolls 17:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. thanks. Since you write now that you personally believe that some critical point seems to be reached, I keep quiet now, and will wait for the result of the other step. In the meantime I adressed the Arbcom. I think a solution is still possible. --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chen Pei-Kung has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No in-depth coverage of this person appears to exist. Currently fails WP:GNG

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 00:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]