User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 4/Block

You have been indefinitely blocked

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Commons for the following reason: Threatening other editors (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Rodhullandemu_appears_to_have_posted_a_death_threat, Special:Diff/610379871. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{unblock|(enter your reason here) ~~~~}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. See also the block log. For more information, see Appealing a block.

AntiCompositeNumber talk 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Admin Yann warns me, another admin blocks me. Which one do you mean? And it clearly wasn't a serious threat and only a fool would think so. I live in Liverpool. I'm not going to go to France on a Saturday night. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)" Decline reason: "Since there is absolutely no insight as to why making any death threats to a total stranger on the internet is a terrible idea, I am declining this unblock request. Your account will remain blocked indefinitely to prevent events like this from happening again. De728631 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. Request reason: "We have moved on from the last unblock request and there is now more information to hand. 1. When some Admins and other users consider my words to constitute a death threat, and three respected and experienced Admins @Achim55, A.Savin, and Christian Ferrer: do not, and would not have blocked, there is a clearly a problem. There should be some unity of approach from the Admins otherwise policy is interpreted and sanctions applied inconsistently and even capriciously. Policies have a duty to be as certain as possible, not only for the avoidance of doubt in itself, but to prevent Commons from being brought into disrepute. It follows that the language used should be rigorous, as if we were writing an encyclopedia. Users should be able to ascertain the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and sanctions certainly should not be based on uncertainty or personal interpretation. That's what makes this block indefensible in the circumstances. 2. This is not the place for a discussion on the wording of policy. That should occur at the Talk page of COM:NPA. 3. All the definitions of a threat I have ever read involve two principles: (a) intention and (b) perception. Intention means that the threat should be credible on the part of the person making it, i.e. it should be capable of execution and intended to put the other person in fear. I've said more than once that a 68-year old man in poor health is not going, using only his bus pass, to go to an unascertainable location in France in the middle of the night and put the threat into action. Anyonw who thinks that, sorry, is deluding themselves. It was always,, and still is, an empty threat, although I would not do the same again. "Perception" here means that the recipient of the threat also believes that it will be acted on. We cannot read the mind of the IP vandal and he, now being blocked for that, is unable to tell us. We could try and guess from their actions after receiving the warning but their immediate reaction was to blank this page as a two-fingered "fuck you". They were later blocked and their only edit since then was to delete the block notice from their talk page. To me, that's not the action of someone in fear for their life; it's the action of someone feeling guilt, shame or cocking a final snook. 4. I'm sorry this has caused so much trouble but a lot of that is not my responsibility, and I think the witch hunt should be put to bed. It's tedious. But I will leave vandals to their own devices in future. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)" Unblock reason: "Rodhullandemu gave his vision of the acts done, and, within our blocking policy, two points have been achieved enough to allow the unblock request. 1/ there is obviously a credible promise that the behaviour will not be repeated, e.g. I quote "...an empty threat, although I would not do the same again." 2/ an explanation of why the block is not appropriate is also provided, and yes, an instant indef-block performed by one admisnitrator vs 3 administrators who are claiming that such block is not appropriate is what I call "a consensus to lift the block". Therefore, and to avoid wheel warring, if the block is reinstalled it should be discussed before in the appropriate noticeboard, and this time a clear consensus should include, not only the support of some people who speak loudly, but a clear support from the admin. team. I have nothing againt the administrator who perfomed the block, but as we are 3 administrators who think that the block should be lifted I consider this action uncontroversial and I do not consult administrator who perfomed the block. However @Rodhullandemu please consider all this as a serious warning." This template should be archived normally.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

Telling your drinking buddy to shut up or you'll kill them, that's fine. Doing the same to a total stranger on the internet is something else entirely. I would hope any admin reviewing this request would see the pattern of bullying reflected in the slow-motion downfall of this user and not be persuaded by this ridiculous appeal. Harassment and incivility already cost them their admin privileges last year, it seems they learned nothing from that. This is overdue if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So you think it's OK to kick a man when he's down? Fine. I won't go into my health problems and lack of proper sleep but there is a sad tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater in Wiki projects. 549,000 contributions, 27657 own images uploaded, 1600 Valued Images, 550 Quality Images. You think that's worth losing for one perhaps poorly-considered edit? I'd call that missing the point. And with 2,746 edits here in ten years, you're hardly invested in this project. Sorry, but I think you're just too biased against me to offer a fair opinion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I would say my comments on this would negatively affect any future runs at becoming a sysop on Commons, but why the heck would I want to do that so.. how did this user ever become an admin here, let alone on enwp? Y'all lost nothing of importance by blocking this user Commons. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't know who you are or what you do, and we've never interacted so you clearly don't know me at all. Adn you rake up stuff from ten years ago? WOW. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Your first reply was that you stopped studying French years ago and machine translation is not reliable, implying the translation I provided was not accurate, but not correcting it. [1]
• Your second reply was that you did do it, and who cares if you did it if the end result was what you wanted? [2]
• Your third remark, the above appeal was basiclly "death threats are ok if you don't mean them."
• So,being evasive didn't work, being dismissive didn't work, so you're trying "I made so many contribs and I have health problems take pity on me." You have nobody to blame for this but yourself. If your first reply was that you realize it was an incredibly stupid thing to post and would an admin please delte it, we wouldn't be here. Now you're grabbing at straws trying to see which one will be accepted as an excuse, when the one thing you have not tried is being honest, including with yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

So you still think it's OK to kick a man when he's down? Fine if that's what you feel comfortable with. But it sends out a poor message to those who actually care about this project and what it's actually for. It's for providing high quality images for use by the whole world, including Wikipedia, which is what I do. It's not my concern any more that the English language Wikipedia doesn't want them. I thought the idea was for it to be as good as it could possibly be, but apparently not. Never mind. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You did this to yourself, in fact you advertised that you had done it, seemingly without an ounce of reflection on what you'd just written. People who act the way you do deter others from wanting to contribute here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Vandals aren't a community. They rarely talk to each other. Good-faith contributors like myself don't need to be deterred, although, mate, you're not helping because nobody who comes here to vandalise and seeks to compromise this project has the foresight to think "I know I'm actively doing wrong, and might eventually be spotted and stopped, but meanwhile I'll just fuck it all up and hope I can get away with it for a while". I'm not keen on evil, bullying or stupidity, but vandals by definition know what they are doing and should expect the worst. I see the IP is now blocked for a week. If I'd still been an Admin, he'd have been blocked long before a report to COM:AN was necessary, and we could have been proud that we defended Commons. Bottom line is, he stopped vandalising, apart from blanking my talk page, so the block was maybe too late. You people don't know how to defend this project, that's the problem. I sleep now. Maybe I wake up, I'm not bothered. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

None of us likes vandals. But there are clearly documented approaches for dealing with them. And in none of the policy pages I've read have I seen "Issue death threats". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been relatively inactive in recent months, so don't consider myself in any way involved in any recent Commons discussions or behaviours. I'm afraid I really do need to endorse the indefinite block, but would point out that indefinite is not the same as infinite, so this is not necessarily a permanent block. There needs to be discussions amongst the administrators and contributors to Commons on whether they would like Rodhullandemu to be unblocked, and if so, what the requirements for any unblock will be. That can obviously then go forward for discussion with Rodhullandemu on whether they agree (should conditions be included within any unblock). I would suggest that for this evening, discussion here should probably drift to a pause, whilst tempers calm and reflection is undertaken, and we can see where we are tomorrow. Nick (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Rod, I'm all for banter mate even dark humour but posting what you did today wasn't a joke nor was it funny, I admit I've lost my patience with IPs and even people in the past and said some naughty words but I'd never say what you did never. Given the lack of self-reflection and even self-awareness here I with great sadness agree with the block. I'm disappointed in you Rod truly I am. –Davey2010^Talk 02:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, you have good positive record here, but your words are not acceptable, whoever is the recipient. So far, you haven't even acknowledged that you did it wrong. So I would advise, take a long break (I mean months, just to be clear), and come back with a sincere apology. Then unblocking might be considered. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I haven't slept and so am exhausted and in pain. I would like a break, but I have no idea what I would do with it. Meanwhile, the danger of course is that since I am currently blocked on two projects, someone will go to the stewards on Meta for a global block. I'm not so stupid as to think some enemy will not do that, which would rather militate against any rehabilitation. I will be discussing my options with my doctor tomorrow, but the NHS is notoriously poor on mental health resources, as my own experience shows. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any move for a global block at this time, and will say so if anybody raises such a discussion on Meta. If a discussion starts, can someone please ping me to let me know as I'm only keeping one eye on Wikipedia/Commons at the moment. Nick (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• For those who perhaps don't share the institutional memory, this is just another example of the kind of behaviour that has been going on literally for years. Rodhullandemu has been persistently bullying other users, and being obnoxious to people on an "end justifies the means" rationale for as long as I've been aware of him. And every time he's brought to account, we get this "I'm ill, I might die, don't kick me when I'm down" whining. We never get any recognition that his behaviour was bad, we're just supposed to feel sorry for him and let him get away with it. Enough people have seen it now, and it just won't wash any more (if it ever did). It's led to desysop on English Wikipedia, followed by indef block, then the removal of talk page access. It's also led to desysop on Commons by a very strong consensus. Rodhullandemu has proved multiple times, on both projects, that his approach to disagreement is grossly incompatible with the standards required by the Wikimedia community. And we have never seen any contrition for Rodhullandemu's egregiously bad behaviour - just the same self-pitying excuses every time. In my view a ban from all WMF projects would be appropriate - long overdue, in fact. I won't request it myself, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone else does. For now, here on Commons, I hope we can finally recognize Rodhullandemu's chronic bullying for the poison that it is and refuse to accept it any more. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not convinced it's either good science, good rhetoric, or even fair, to cherry-pick three episodes out of a 14-year dedication to Wikimedia projects and claim them as typical. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not just three episodes, it's a years-long bullying approach from you that is not compatible with the Wikimedia ethos - the events I mention are simply the culmination of extremes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. Had there been other significant events, there would have been consequences. There were none. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow. You’ve made exactly four edits to Commons this whole year, all of them to pile on top of a hard working Commons editor who had a momentary lapse of jusdgement and out of frustration left off some steam against an IP vandal… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

These "momentary lapses of judgment" have been going on for years, and have led to RH&E being desysoped and now indef blocked on two projects. Anyway, my purpose here was simply to make sure people understand the full story of RH&E's chronic problematic behaviour. What you Commons regulars want to do about it is entirely up to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

If you are not a Commons regular (which you clearly are admitting just above), why then do you ever care what is going on here, who should be blocked and who not? Are we Commoners not adult enough to take care of this project ourselves, without paternalism from English WP or elsewhere? Or is it actually not about Commons but more about years old cross-wiki gameplaying, which neither has to do anything with Commons, nor with its main purpose -- to collect freely licensed media? Regards --A.Savin 12:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Why do I care? I happen to think Commons is a first-class repository of media that supports the whole raft of Wikipedia projects, and I value it greatly. And I'm keen to see Commons and en.wiki working together to make both projects successful, safe and welcoming. I'm not sure how much I've contributed here - a few of my photos, and I've reported a lot of images for copyvio etc over the years (so there'll be some deleted contributions too). Does the fact that I haven't done much work here mean I'm not allowed to care? And why do some contributors always turn discussions like this into "us vs them" arguments, assume bad faith and attack the messenger rather than dealing with the problem? We're all on the same side, trying to achieve the same ends, aren't we? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Where did I assume bad faith? I did not look at your other (albeit not really numerous) contribs on Commons, just on some recent uploads and perhaps they are okay. What you do on enwiki doesn't bother me much, as long as Commons is not concerned and more drama is not transferred to us. Of course Commons and wikipedia are sister projects and our goals are similar and Wikipedia would not make much sense without Commons and vice versa. But the policies are not always identical and especially there is no rule on blocks for cross-wiki reasons. Yes, if someone is already blocked on one or more projects, that might in doubt be helpful to make a decision here, but does not have to; otherwise we should indef also Fae, T Cells, GPinkerton... just to name a few examples... But what I see in this discussion and on COM:ANU so far, is that there are several users active who are obviously from enwiki and not from here, and their arguments are like: "Rodhullandemu had harassed users on English WP, and eventually has been indef'ed there". Hello? Are we talking about what had he done on English WP as of 2011, or on Commons as of 2021? Regarding the latter, I fail to see much more statements apart from "Rodhullandemu is bad, period" and "Death threats are evil, period"... --A.Savin 13:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I was referring to your "is it actually not about Commons but more about years old cross-wiki gameplaying" comment. If that's meant in good faith, then I'm happy to take it back - but as you made the comment in direct reply to me, critiquing my contributions to this discussion, can you understand why I might have seen it as other than good faith? If some people are saying that RH&E should be blocked simply because he's blocked on en.wiki, then of course I would strongly disagree with that. My opinion is that what happens here should be based on RH&E's behaviour on Commons, but that examples of similar behaviour on other projects can provide useful background material. If some of that background material is 10 years old, and he's still behaving exactly the same way on Commons to this day (his Commons desysop was as recent as 2020 and documented the same kind of unacceptable behaviour a full nine years after he was indeffed on en.wiki), then that shows the chronic nature of the problem. So yes, I do think old behaviour can be relevant, when it is behaviour that is still being repeated today, here on Commons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• "I've seen the damage that Rodhullandemu has done to editors on Commons, and I don't agree that postponing an examination of his behaviour is the best course at this point. If he had show even the slightest inclination to change his behaviour, I'd have some sympathy, but he just doubles down every time. " That was a year-and-ahalf-ago, and here we are again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, that has already been amply covered in Boing's posts ("other"), and I think repetition is not only unnecessary, but twisting the knife. You've got what you want and I suggest you just gloat quietly rather than push me closer to the edge, for that is the natural and probable consequence of your actions. Boing complains of me "whining"; I coud go into chapter and verse about my mental health issues and then maybe people would have some understanding, per WMF's policy towards vulnerable contributors; in what way was that not a personal attack, and I look forward to some consistency of approach emerging? Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

If you need mental health care, I really do hope you get it - and I know how poor it can be here in Liverpool. But we can not abandon the mental health of the victims of your bullying over the years (and anyone who doesn't know about that can get some of it from your Commons desysop discussion) in order to protect your mental health. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Please email me a list of these people's names. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to drag the victims of your chronic bullying and abuse into this again - people can re-read the previous discussions about your behaviour if they're interested. And I do not intend to engage with you via email. The point is that every time your behaviour comes up, you insist that everyone must prioritise your health and well-being, while showing no sensitivity whatsoever to the health and well-being of anybody else involved. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll read that as "I can't, so I won't". You cannot going round making lurid allegatins without providing evidence to support them. Noted. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of being blocked from editing my own Talk Page for not addressing my block, I do think it appropriate to say this before I try to get some sleep (awake 32 hours now): The second Pillar of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view". I have always agreed with that. However, when I see others using words in relation to me such as "bullying*, "harassment" and "whining", one can only despair at the apparent moral disjunction between the Second Pillar mutatis mutandis and what is apparently acceptable elsewhere. These words have specific meanings, and do not apply to anything I have ever said. I prefer "robust persuasion", "continued discussion" and "telling the truth" for each of these, although I have little hope that anyone will get it. It's truly appalling that others import into my words meanings that I never intended, and prefer those they invent themselves. What is worse is that others are reading things into what I said in a venue at which I have no right of reply. That's just indefensible and does the Wikimnedia movement no credit in the slightest. Goodnight. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Support unconditional unblock. As I have written it in Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections, I think that a block was not necessary in first place, however the comment was indeed inappropriate. Rodhullandemu should be unblocked and simply warned. There is no need to do a climbing competition here, and certainly not with sanctions. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Oppose second unblock for a multitude of reasons:

1. "When some Admins and other users consider my words to constitute a death threat, and three respected and experienced Admins @Achim55, A.Savin, and Christian Ferrer: do not, and would not have blocked, there is a clearly a problem" - Is that a joke ?, 98% of the board agreed this was a death threat (10 people) with only 4 seemingly believing it wasn't .... If well over half of the community are telling you something then maybe listen to them instead of listening to the 2% who are evidently wrong?. Just because 3-4 admins wouldn't of indeffed you doesn't mean your comment was fine or even that those 3 admins are correct (they're not!),
2. Third statement (which is a whole ton of waffle) - I'm not going to sit here and read your waffle over perception and intention - All of that is irrelevant and side-tracks the real issue - You've not retracted the statement, You've not apologized to the IP or the community, There's been no self-reflection and you've shown no remorse (if anything it's been 2 fingers at us and a whole ton of wikilayering) - The only thing you've done here thus far is dig yourself a bigger hole today than you did yesterday.

I'm also disgusted at the fact you'd bring mental health into this - I'm sure a lot of us here are suffering with varying degrees of mental health but you know what we do - we try and get by, we try living a normal life as possible, we try and use this place as a way to cheer us up and sort of try and forget the real world - What we don't do Rod is start making death threats to anyone because of our issues we're going through.

In short your unblock request is a joke and your lack of remorse is disturbing to say the least. This unblock should be declined as should any others you make after. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll just point out that this is not a consensus discussion. This is a case of getting things right. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Funny how you didn't say that to Christian above who supported your unblock, Funny that. Yeah well when you tell someone you'll tear their head off then this very much becomes a consensus-based discussion. You could've put this right yesterday but have you ?, No you've done absolutely nothing. The very fact you haven't even bothered to read anything I've said above speaks volumes (Personal attack removed) –Davey2010^Talk 19:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Christian's comment was made 12 hours ago. I did read what you wrote. I just think you didn't understand my arguments. If you're happy with Commons baing effectlvely a kangaroo court, OK. But I still think Personal attacks are not tolerated, even here and suggest you reconsider your wording. "Disturbing"? Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I am disappointed that you decided to unblock Rodhullandemu in this situation, without consulting me or obtaining consensus at COM:ANBP (in accordance with COM:BP. I only just became aware of this new unblock request, and was in the process of reading through the discussions. For the record, I do not agree with this unconditional unblock here. I see nothing here to convince me that Rodhullandemu will not continue to be uncivil or to threaten other editors. Rodhullandemu, I sincerely hope, for the good of Commons, that you will manage to improve your behavior. --AntiCompositeNumber talk 20:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Well I just hope there will not be an unsightly wheel-war here. Even a new consensus to reblock, well I see nothing in any of our policies that permits that. Meanwhile, I can get some sleep tonight, subject to my upstairs neighbours, and I still have a backlog of 11 folders of images to upload. All points made, both for and against, have been taken on board. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree with your characterization that this was 1 admin-vs-3. De728631 declined the first unblock request, and Yann and Nick both have opined here in support of the block. I see no evidence of consensus to unblock here. AntiCompositeNumber talk 20:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking does not require consensus, just as blocking doesn't. It's within the Admin's discretion, and although consensus may be taken into account, it's not the governing factor. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Fwiw, at least this highlights that Commons really has to get a grip on its NPA (de facto) policy. There needs to be a clear set of rules on what is and isn't allowed. — Berrely • ^T∕_C 20:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment note for users who will potentially pings me here: don't take that bad, but there is an open discussion in one noticeboard, and I have not the time nor the courage to potentially answer (even to read) at 2, 3 or more different places. Sorry. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment Likewise, there is nothing more to be said here, and this page will be archived shortly. Otherwise comments made to me will certainly be given all the respect they deserve. 21:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Rodhullandemu (talk)