User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Previous

As this long discussion shows, there is a consensus that unblocking by Christian Ferrer was controversial and out of line with current policies and practices. As I said previously, take a long break to think over this incident, and come back later with a sincere apology. Since you mentioned that you have health issues, please take also this time to take care about yourself. Regards, --Yann (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Unusefull and unucessary block, it is clear that the user will not do that again. This is a kind punishment block, as well as wheel-warring, both against our policies. A warning (another thing written in our policies, and another thing not respected here) given to Rodhullandemu should have been sufficiant, and in the case of recurrence a reasonable (not indef.) block given. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC) @Christian Ferrer, Please retract your wheel warring statement and please take a read of en:WP:WHEELWARRING - When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision (emphasis mine) - Rod was not reblocked willynilly - They were reblocked per the consensus at Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#Reblock so therefore your WHEELWARRING comment is completely false and is a serious accusation. Had Yann blocked Rod without any consensus first then yes that would've been innapropriate and would've been wheelwarring but that clearly didn't happen here. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC) @Davey2010: Under the link to COM:AN/B you quoted there is no consensus at all, whatever consensus means. Also let me remind you (for the 2nd time I belive) that this is Commons, not English Wikipedia. The funny thing is that the whole drama has ben started by Beeblebrox who harassed Fæ (what, I guess, lead to the valuable user leaving the project). --jdx Re: 19:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC) @Jdx: This isn't about me, it is about Rod. I didn't start anything, he started it by posting that indefensible comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC) @Jdx - Without being rude - Are you blind ?, There is very clearly consensus for a reblock there, You can disagree with that disagree as much as you like but consensus is still consensus. The community spoke. Yes and I ignored you the first time - Just because we're Commons doesn't mean EN policies don't apply. Sorry what ?, This has nothing to do with Beeblebrox and to say it is is quite frankly laughable - Unless Beeblebrox held a gun to Rods head and demanded him to say what he said then no this has nothing to do with Beeb. We as human beings are responsible for our words and actions so stop clutching at straws trying to find someone to blame - Rod dun goof'd and has paid the price for their stupidity. –Davey2010Talk 21:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Guys! This is not a crazy den of pigs, it's my talk page. Take it elsewhere, please, at least out of respect for a fellow human-being, if not out of embarrassment. We've already lost three good contributors in this year: Rexxs, Fae and now me. I would hate to see Commons go further downhill. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Again, please stop this battleground mentality. What's done is done, and has been done now in two or three forums. I need Ramipril, Indapamide and Amlodipine for my high blood pressure, and you are really stretching their abilities here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC) What battleground mentality ?, I simply asked someone to retract an incorrect statement - Did I ping Jdx here ? No I don't believe I did. But sure unless I'm repinged back here then I will respect your wishes. –Davey2010Talk 23:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC) I'm talking to everyone. This isn't the place to continue a now moot debate. When I'm on the knife-edge, it's seriously unhelpful. Those who came from Wikipedia should go back there and be Arbitrary, and others should concentrate on getting Commons into a defensible state, should the outside world decide to take a look at how it's become poisonous, just like Wikipedia. We should be better than that, as it used to be when I first came here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC) +1 Yann asked this user to go away, think about this incident, and take care of their health. Let's give them an opportunity to follow this advice. If anyone wants to keep discussing this, do it at AN or something. Brianjd (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I obviously agree and am considering my position.  Question COM:BP contains a section on "Appealing a block". Nowhere can I find any guidance or opinion on "Appealing an unblock". Where is it, please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC) There is no formal procedure for appealing an unblock: if there was, we would have seen it by now. The procedure is to contact the unblocking admin directly and, if that fails, discuss at COM:AN/BP and possibly COM:AN/U. Brianjd (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC) I see. That makes it possible for an entryist cabal to game a consensus that forces an Admin to reblock. Is that really how the Wikiworld should operate? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:44, 1 December 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: " 1. Consensus is good. It means we have broad consent for policies and actions. But there's one thing it can't do, and that is trump the law, and that we accept from 0ur attitude to copyright violations. 2. Although we allow unregistered editors to edit using IPs, there is a consequence of that which seems to have been largely ignored (and actually applies equally to registered editors): Since the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation are based in the USA, it is a federal offence to vandalise. 18 U.S.C. §1030 5(C) clearly states :"...intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss". We give authority, yes but not to vandalise. That's why we revert and block vandals; but it also means that any authority to edit vanishes as soon as they vandalise. Damage is obvious, because we revert. Loss is also obvious, because it means extra storage is required on the servers for the intermediate revisions. Not much, but if you add it up, there is a cost in terms of disk storage. 3. I am resident in the United Kingdom, where the relevant law is Section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which includes the words "without lawful excuse". Any court has always held it a lawful excuse to prevent crime, which clearly vandalism is. 4. Even if USA law is applied it is subject to Elonis v. United States, which makes it clear that "mens rea (intention) was required to prove the commission of a crime under §875(c)". I have always, and will continue to deny, that I had any real or credible intention to carry out the threat, because I knew it was an empty threat. No 68-year old man in poor health is going to go out in the middle of the evening from Liverpool, using only a free bus pass, to some unascertainable location in France to carry out any threat. 5. I know these arguments are complicated, but what it boils down to is that not every threat to kill (even if perceived to be such) is actionable, otherwise police officers wuld be prosecuted for shouting "Stop or I'll shoot" at a suspect. Prevention of crime trumps that. And the words are pretty much the same as those I'm alleged to have used. 6. I'd counsel any Admin minded to decline this request to take proper care and time, including legal advice if neccessary, before doing so. 7. Any doubt, of course, I am entitled to have resolved in my favour since it is one of the basic Rules of Fairness. Thank you. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)" Decline reason: "The user has not acknowledged that their behaviour is inappropriate. You crossed the line, excuses and saying "oh I wasn't really going to harm them" are no substitute for recognizing your improper conduct. Talk page access revoked as your comportment continues to be disruptive and shows no change - not to mention the apparent legal threat. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

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

 Oppose This unblock request is just a bunch of legal stuff that completely ignores the arguments already made in extensive discussion. I suggest that an admin revoke Rodhullandemu's ability to edit their talk page, and that Rodhullandemu follow Yann's advice at the top of the collapsed section. Brianjd (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

That's hardly fair. It's a perfectly valid unblock request, not an abuse of the talk page. If the WMF and its projects impose rules based on law, they are open to be tested and frquently are. If there was no actionable threat, any other discussion becomes moot. That's why I ask for a careful consideration. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if your threats are legal, that is no reason for the WMF to provide a platform for them. Brianjd (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to have a go or nothing but that's not a valid unblock request - Unblocks should be used to show that you've learnt from your "mistake" or that you've basically changed - What do you your current unblocks tells us ? - It tells me you've sadly learnt nothing and instead are trying to find reason to justify your original comment.

Either way Rod it's only 6 months which for you is better than indefinitely - Use 6 months to take a break, (very bluntly) to sort your shit out and basically come back a better person.

This whole wikilaywering/legal mumbo jumbo only digs yourself into a further hole and I fear if you go down the legal aspect of things WMF may well office-ban you entirely - Not a good route to go down. I wish you all the best and I genuinely mean that Rod. –Davey2010^Talk 12:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

 Oppose per Brianjd - No remorse, no sincerity, no apology, no retraction = Nothing. - Just a whole load of wikilawyering. Disappointed Rod's still defending their actions. I would also recommend talkpage revocation as it's fair to say enough of the communities time has been wasted on this user. –Davey2010^Talk 12:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Most people think the law doesn't matter- until they become victims of it. Same with Wiki policies. Calling it "wikilawyering", if you like, but if WMF policies aren't clear- and they aren't- nobody should suffer because of that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

We very much don't see eye to eye here and further replying helps no one, I said my peace so I shan't reply any further. As I said use the 6 months wisely that's all I'm saying, I wish you the very best with everything (and I just hope you can come back with a fresher miindset, Everyone gets stressed on Wikimedia myself included). Take care Rod, –Davey2010^Talk 13:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• From COM:BP:
  • "An explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines or is likely to be a mistake or an unintended side effect".
  • "Making repeated unblocking requests without appropriate reasons may be considered abusive." Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• I still think that 6 months are way too long and disproportionate and "tear off your head" not being a DT, yet you should admit this still was a serious incivility, and apologize. Otherwise I'm afraid there is no chance anymore. A complete unblock at this point is not in place, especially not with all that boring wikilawyering. Regards --A.Savin 14:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've never claimed it wasn't a serious incivility, but that's not what I was accused of and there is no scope for plea-bargaining here. Obviously, opinion is that it was, and of course I regret it given all the heat and noise that has been generated, and I have already said that it would not happen again. What has been pointed out, however, are holes and uncertainty in Commons and WMF policies that really should be fixed. You say "wikilawyering", but that's how policy based on criminal offences should be addressed. I'm sorry if people find it tedious but there is a lot more than my WikiLife at stake here. It's not enough for everyone to say "of course it is", because quite often, it isn't. we watch a movie and think we are seeing moving images, but we aren't we're watching a series of still images projected at such a rate that the illusion is created. As for six months being too long, I agree. Meanwhile, I've been ad Admin on two projects now obviously not successfully, but enough to know that Talk page access should only be revoked in the most hopeless cases (e.g. "UNLOCK ME NOW, YOU BASTARDS") or repeated vexatious requests. I think a closely-reasoned argument is worthy of serious consideration by an intelligent Admin. Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Admin: Suggest revocation f talk-page access at this point; this request is clearly a vexatious attempt at causing trouble and specificially occupying as much volunteer time and energy as possible in order to wear the community down. In any case, no single admin is going to unblock in the face of an overwhelming consensus to re-block.
  Should probably also restore the indefinite duration of the block too, as "counselling" a patrolling Admin to take legal advice could quite easily be perceived as a legal threat.Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  On what basis? Of an essay? Perhaps you should carefully read first what you intend to quote/link. --jdx ^Re: 17:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, no. Yet again, I must correct you: Wikimedia Commons has a policy of blocking users who post legal threats on Wikimedia Commons against other editors is the correct interpretation to have, linking as it does back to WP:NLT. But at least you are being civil at the moment; we bask in gratitude. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  In handling apparent legal threats, users should seek to clarify the poster's intention, explain the policy, and ask them to remove the threat.. You need to clarify which words you considered to be a legal threat. And linking to a Wikipedia Policy does not make it a Commons policy. And it is an essay, so not policy either. That's one of the things wrong with Commons, we're too lazy about getting our house in order. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's one of the things wrong with Commons, we're too lazy about getting our house in order. Indeed, and there's a certain irony to your recognising it!  ;) Serial Number 54129 (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well, it becomes obvious only when it's put under the microscpe as it being here. Commons existed long before I joined it, so youo;d expect that those who set it up would have made sure that its policies were, at least initially, those of WP or similar. But until they are Commons policy, essays and opinions have no effect and any block purporting to be under those policies must be void and unenforceable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Could you please point us exactly which Commons’ policy links to WP:NLT? --jdx ^Re: 11:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Responding to a block for making threats by making (vague legal) threats does not exactly give me great confidence. I don't know what part of "don't threaten other editors" isn't clear here. --AntiCompositeNumber talk

I'm suggesting the an Admin considering this should take advice not as a threat, but that these issues are admittedly complex and would benefit from an expert eye, if there's one available. There's no legal threat as it is usually understood. Putting words into my mouth doesn't help either. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

File:MeandHer.jpg

File:MeandHer.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Not own work since he's in it and it's too old to be a selfie Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : 217.137.41.102.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

note

Rod has just been blocked from Wikidata for Intimidating behaviour/harassment: Crosswiki harassment issues, in other words, for importing this dispute to Wikidata for no reason other than to apparently try and have the last word with Davey. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice

I have unblanked the blanked part, from what I can tell blanking talk pages of indefinitely blocked users is something from the French-language Wikipedia that the WMFOffice is now trying to export everywhere. This screwed up the archiving system and would have left future DR's unarchived. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

User page

@LPfi and Davey2010: , regarding this and this. Wouldn't it be better to discuss this? As far as I know there is no policy on any Wikimedia website that tells people to blank blocked / banned users' pages, it's just a sort of gravedancing that became acceptable and would be considered vandalism if done to any non-blocked / non-banned user, but as this is a WMF Global Ban I would like to see some discussion about it.

How does the Wikimedia Commons benefit from having the user page of a former administrator with thousands of high quality uploads blanked? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Most if not all users in Category:Commons users banned by the WMF have had the userpage blanked. Bidgee (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

As per BRD LP would need to seek consensus for their changes not me, On EN blanking userpages for WMF banned users is the norm (with the exception of one respected editor whose userpage was allowed to stay), Other than that one person I've never known WMF-banned editors userpages to remain here or elsewhere. Anyway I'm not fussed whether userpages remain or go. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I stated my view in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/12#The blanking of "User talk:Rodhullandemu". Not many people participated in the discussion and it was mainly about the talk page archives. Perhaps one should raise the issue in a new thread.

There is no policy based justification for blanking people's user pages that I am aware of. Practice on English Wikipedia does not affect Commons, and attribution is much more important on Commons, as contributions here usually are complete works, with prominent attribution to a user page.

I think it is a fair expectation of those who upload their own work, that their user page is under their own control, as long as it follows Commons' guidelines and policies. The attribution mandated by most common licences cannot be regarded as fulfilled by a link to a page totally different from what the user expected when licensing their work.

The attribution requirement has nothing to do with the relations between WMF and the author, so being banned, especially being banned for reasons not disclosed and appealable, or reasons unrelated to the licensed works and the user page, cannot be seen as a fair reason to break the connection between the attribution link and the content intended to be shown when clicking it. I understand if WMF does not want to host user pages of banned users, but in that case WMF or Commons should substitute a link to the user's web page elsewhere, as agreed with the user.

–LPfi (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your most memorable shot of 2021

Happy New Year! As always at the beginning of the new year, I'm inviting you to share your most memorable shot of the past year. Which of your photos stood out in 2021? Which image created special memories that you'd like to share with others? On behalf of the Commons Photographers User Group I wish you, your family, and your friends all the best for 2022. Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Frank Schulenburg Why invite a WMF banned user? Isn't this "invite" violating m:WMF Global Ban Policy? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Liuxinyu970226, Judging by the timestamps[1] I'd say Frank Schulenburg uses some sort of tool or script to send these out and probably hasn't looked at any of the talkages.

I don't really understand why Frank hasn't applied for mass-message as you're required to list all users .... and had Frank did that they then would've been told about Rod and basically this message wouldn't be here now. Might be worthwhile in future going the mass-message way. –Davey2010^Talk 11:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

For convenience to send mass-messages you'd need to basically do this. –Davey2010^Talk 12:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the user from the list of people to get messages from the user group. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Footpaths_in_Wiltshire

Footpaths in Wiltshire has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

JopkeB (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Double Arrow.jpg

File:Double Arrow.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Xasley (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Category:Aberdeen,_Pennsylvania

Category:Aberdeen,_Pennsylvania has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Memorials_to_the_Indian_Mutiny

Memorials to the Indian Mutiny has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Ricky81682 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)