Public statement regarding nl:Wikipedia Options

[Guido den Broeder]

On October 2008, the Arbitration Committee of nl:Wikipedia imposed on my account there, without hearing me or even informing me about case or verdict, a punitive (!) block of one year, followed by an indefinite block.

The Arbitration Committee stated the following grounds for this decision:
* I had supposedly placed a pamphlet against another user on a public website;
* I was supposedly conducting a legal action against this user.
Only if I were at some point in time to prove, with documents, that this had run its course, would this block be lifted.

Both pamphlet and legal action, however, only exist in the fantasy of the members of the Arbitration Committee. They are not real. Obviously, someone cannot produce documents of a non-existing legal action, or remove a non-existing pamphlet from a non-existing website.

When, towards the end of March 2009, I was coincidentally informed about this case by Arbcom member CaAl, I immediately told this. In a later IRC conversation with CaAl I explained again, ad nauseam, and CaAl said he understood. Of course, I requested that the block were lifted. Next, CaAl was removed as a discussion partner and replaced with his colleague Lolsimon. Since then, a ritual has been repeated several times where each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation. A normal discussion with this Lolsimon proved impossible, he simply didn't react to what I said. An intervention by another user, who explained again to a third Arbcom member, had no effect.

Today the Arbitration Committee, according to this Lolsimon, decided to maintain the block of my account.

The Arbitration Committee, divided or not, therefore persist in their fabrications. Furthermore, they write about this in public, thereby continuously violating the privacy of the mentioned other user. Meanwhile, this user has left nl:Wikipedia. Many other users have departed as well.

I leave this to the reader and can only hope, that soon a reorganization will take place on nl:Wikipedia, before the remaining users leave or get blocked as well.


Original statement in Dutch
link

Op 22 oktober 2008 heeft de Arbitragecommissie van nl:Wikipedia mijn account aldaar, zonder mij te horen of mij zelfs maar op de hoogte te stellen van zaak of uitspraak, een strafblokkade (!) opgelegd van een jaar, gevolgd door een blokkade voor onbepaalde tijd.

De Arbitragecommissie gaf hiervoor de volgende gronden aan:
* ik zou een pamflet tegen een medegebruiker op een publieke website hebben geplaatst;
* ik zou een juridische actie tegen deze medegebruiker voeren.
Alleen als ik te zijner tijd met stukken zou aantonen dat dit achter de rug was, zou de blokkade worden opgeheven.

Pamflet en juridische actie bestaan evenwel enkel in de fantasie van de leden van de Arbitragecommissie, zij zijn niet echt. Een mens kan uiteraard geen stukken produceren van een juridische actie die niet bestaat, of een niet-bestaand pamflet van een niet-bestaande website verwijderen.

Toen ik eind maart 2009 bij toeval alsnog van Arbcom-lid CaAl van deze zaak vernam, heb ik dit onmiddellijk aangegeven. In een later IRC-gesprek met CaAl heb ik het nog eens tot in den treure uitgelegd en CaAl zei het te hebben begrepen. Ik verzocht uiteraard om deze onzinnige blokkade op te heffen. Vervolgens werd CaAl als gesprekspartner afgevoerd en vervangen door diens collega Lolsimon. Sindsdien heeft zich enkele malen het ritueel herhaald dat deze Lolsimon telkens, na weken of maanden stilzwijgen, opnieuw stukken opeiste, en ik elke keer per kerende post antwoordde dat er helemaal niet zo'n actie, laat staan met stukken, bestaat. Een normale gedachtenwisseling met deze Lolsimon bleek niet mogelijk, hij reageerde eenvoudig niet op wat ik zei. Ook de tussenkomst van een andere gebruiker, die het nogmaals heeft uitgelegd aan een derde Arbcomlid, heeft niet mogen baten.

Vandaag heeft de Arbitragecommissie, volgens deze Lolsimon, besloten de blokkade van mijn account te handhaven.

De Arbitragecommissie, al dan niet verdeeld, persisteert dus in haar verzinsels. Hierover schrijft men bovendien in het openbaar, zodat tevens de privacy van de genoemde medegebruiker voortdurend wordt geschonden. Deze heeft nl:Wikipedia inmiddels verlaten. Ook vele andere gebruikers zijn vertrokken.

Ik laat dit verder aan de lezer over en kan slechts hopen, dat er op nl:Wikipedia spoedig een reorganisatie plaatsvindt, voordat ook de nog resterende gebruikers zijn vertrokken of geblokkeerd.

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Tue 12th January 2010, 8:07pm

[Jon Awbrey]

Here's a clue …

Jon

[RMHED]

Ik laat dit verder aan de lezer over en kan slechts hopen, dat er op nl:Wikipedia spoedig een reorganisatie plaatsvindt, voordat ook de nog resterende gebruikers zijn vertrokken of geblokkeerd.

Wow! What horrors you have suffered. Oh the humanity! Fight on braver defender of truth and integrity.

[GlassBeadGame]

... each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation.

It does seem reasonable to place the burden of showing the existence and nature of a "legal action" on the party asserting its existence, not the one denying that it exists.

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

[RMHED]

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

Stop encouraging the delusional fuckwit.

[Emperor]

I love Dutch. "geblokkeerd"

If Encyc ever goes multilingual, I want Dutch to be the first language.

[Guido den Broeder]

... each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation.

It does seem reasonable to place the burden of showing the existence and nature of a "legal action" on the party asserting its existence, not the one denying that it exists.

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

I have absolutely no idea why they would think so, they have not told me.

[MBisanz]

... each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation.

It does seem reasonable to place the burden of showing the existence and nature of a "legal action" on the party asserting its existence, not the one denying that it exists.

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

This announcement seems to indicate you were about to file a complaint. I haven't bothered to try to fit the date into your screen above, but this statement seems rather conclusive that at some point there was a legal action.

[Guido den Broeder]

... each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation.

It does seem reasonable to place the burden of showing the existence and nature of a "legal action" on the party asserting its existence, not the one denying that it exists.

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

This announcement seems to indicate you were about to file a complaint. I haven't bothered to try to fit the date into your screen above, but this statement seems rather conclusive that at some point there was a legal action.

Ermmh, that was July 2008 when it was concluded. The current block dates from October 2008.

[A Horse With No Name]

Furthermore, they write about this in public, thereby continuously violating the privacy of the mentioned other user.

Oh, I thought was just an en.Wikipedia shtick.

[Guido den Broeder]

Note btw that a bunch of familiar wikistalkers have already showed up to remove my statement from nl:wikimedia and block my account there.

[GlassBeadGame]

... each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation.

It does seem reasonable to place the burden of showing the existence and nature of a "legal action" on the party asserting its existence, not the one denying that it exists.

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

This announcement seems to indicate you were about to file a complaint. I haven't bothered to try to fit the date into your screen above, but this statement seems rather conclusive that at some point there was a legal action.

Well, GdB?

[A Horse With No Name]

Note btw that a bunch of familiar wikistalkers have already showed up to remove my statement from nl:wikimedia and block my account there.

Funny, I thought everyone in the Netherlands smoked pot and hung out in the Amsterdam red light district. This really shatters my stereotypical opinion.

You might want to come to the USA and join the cast of the TV show "Jersey Shore" -- they have room for another Guido.

[Trick cyclist]

I love Dutch. "geblokkeerd"

If Encyc ever goes multilingual, I want Dutch to be the first language.

Unacceptable prejudice. What's wrong with "blokeret" (Danish and Swedish though Norwegians, for reasons only thay know, use "sperret").

Note btw that a bunch of familiar wikistalkers have already showed up to remove my statement from nl:wikimedia and block my account there.

But if youre permanently blocked already how can they block you?

[Somey]

I haven't bothered to try to fit the date into your screen above, but this statement seems rather conclusive that at some point there was a legal action.

I'm not so sure - the words "my legal action has been concluded to my satisfaction" could conceivably mean that no real action was taken, other than maybe a threat in a nasty letter.

[Guido den Broeder]

... each time this Lolsimon, after a silence of weeks or months, demanded documents of this legal action, and each time I replied that no such action existed, let alone one with documentation.

It does seem reasonable to place the burden of showing the existence and nature of a "legal action" on the party asserting its existence, not the one denying that it exists.

Is it possible for you to elaborate on why it is they might believe there is some kind of "legal action" is pending?

This announcement seems to indicate you were about to file a complaint. I haven't bothered to try to fit the date into your screen above, but this statement seems rather conclusive that at some point there was a legal action.

Well, GdB?

Already replied. It's the wrong timeframe.

I haven't bothered to try to fit the date into your screen above, but this statement seems rather conclusive that at some point there was a legal action.

I'm not so sure - the words "my legal action has been concluded to my satisfaction" could conceivably mean that no real action was taken, other than maybe a threat in a nasty letter.

The more interesting point is that it was concluded 3 months BEFORE this block.

But if youre permanently blocked already how can they block you?

Different wiki.

[Guido den Broeder]

On the bright side, this was a quick and efficient way to learn that the Dutch chapter of Wikimedia is as rotten as the Dutch Wikipedia.

[Premier player]

If Encyc ever goes multilingual, I want Dutch to be the first language.

It's up to you. You can start nl.encyc.org any time you want; the site isn't taken. Or of course you can have Dutch (indeed double-Dutch) articles on the current encyc. There are plenty of wikis with articles in more than one language.

[A Horse With No Name]

If Encyc ever goes multilingual, I want Dutch to be the first language.

It's up to you. You can start nl.encyc.org any time you want; the site isn't taken. Or of course you can have Dutch (indeed double-Dutch) articles on the current encyc. There are plenty of wikis with articles in more than one language.

If you are starting nl.encyc.org, you will need a logo -- something better than that jigsaw globe on WP.

I might recommend an image that personifies everything serious about Dutch academic research.

[Eva Destruction]

If Encyc ever goes multilingual, I want Dutch to be the first language.

It's up to you. You can start nl.encyc.org any time you want; the site isn't taken. Or of course you can have Dutch (indeed double-Dutch) articles on the current encyc. There are plenty of wikis with articles in more than one language.

If you are starting nl.encyc.org, you will need a logo -- something better than that jigsaw globe on WP.

I might recommend an image that personifies everything serious about Dutch academic research.

And join the academic debate at Articles for Deletion/Dutch Oven.