Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See the section directly above this one. Arrête maintenant ou je viendrai par là et t'arracherai la tête.

• Arrête -stop or stopped
• maintenant -now
• ou je-or I
• viendrai -will come
• par là et -over there and

Now we're already in trouble here, no matter what comes next. No legitimate warning on a website begins with "Stop now or I will come over there and" without ending in some sort of threat. So, even if I'm completely wrong about how the sentence ends, this is still not acceptable. Let's see how it plays out:

• t'arracherai -will "tear you away"
• la tête -the head

I ran the translation in reverse, from English to French, and it generated exactly the sentence Rod posted. Machine translation is an imperfect tool, to be sure, but it's usually pretty good doing French to English, and I'm sorry to report it does appear that Rod threatened to find the IP user and remove their head. This is obviously completely unacceptable and his above evasive answer implies to me that he was perfectly aware of what he was saying and chose to do it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

It stopped him vandalising. Result. You seriously think I'm going to go to France at this time of night? Oh do grow up. Case closed. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

"I admit I made a threat of physical violence, but I didn't really mean it and the ends justify the means so everyone should just ignore it" Um... no. IPs are periodically re-assigned. It could already have happened, resulting in some innocent new user being welcomed with a death threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Almost like directing this kind of threat to really anyone was acceptable. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Beeblebrox: My oh my, I am deeply touched by the fate of this innocent IP…   --jdx ^Re: 05:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

IP addresses can be not only re-assigned, but also shared between multiple simultaneous users. Also, other users who read the comment leading to the block will not necessarily consider this comment in the context of vandalism; these other users may judge the entire project based on this comment. Finally, death threats are a serious crime in many (all?) jurisdictions. The comments here and below by jdx are almost as disturbing as those of the blocked user. Brianjd (talk) 05:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it is somewhat disturbing that there are users who think this behavior is defensible. Death threats are never ok. It doesn't matter who they are directed at. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I bet that death threats are welcome and preferred in case of necessary self-defence. Preferred to the actual use of a weapon. --jdx ^Re: 08:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Try not to sprain yourself reaching that far for a defense for this. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Comment I deleted that talk page. @Rodhullandemu: Really not nice and unnecessary. Don't do that again. Yann (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: Really not nice and unnecessary is a fucking understatement. Good to see ACN actually doing something constructive about it ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware of Rodhullandemu's previous behavior. But reading last year desysop discussion, I see that it's not one-time bad temper issue. So I support the block. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict) Blocked indef, this sort of behavior is (still) unacceptable --AntiCompositeNumber talk 22:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you both for your action on this. The appeal they have posted is, frankly, a joke that shows an appalling lack of self-awareness as to the potential harm of such behavior, but I guess we already knew that since they posted here on this board that they had warned the IP,apparently thinking there was nothing wrong with making such a threat if they didn't intend to actually do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AntiCompositeNumber: Seriously, a block for a seasoned, productive user for writing a few inappropriate words to a fucking vandal? BTW, IMO the main Rodhullandemu’s mistake are not the words, but the fact that he tried to warn an obvious vandal. @Rodhullandemu: In cases like this it is not worth to warn or edit war, just report the vandal immediately. Fortunately, our policy does not require obvious vandals to be warned. --jdx ^Re: 05:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify, nobody has suggested that Rod was wrong about the vandal. I should think it clear form the above discussion that the issue is threatening to hunt them down and kill them, and refusing to acknowledge that that is a problem when the inappropriateness of that was pointed out. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wow. --Rschen7754 06:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

So because Rod's a "seasoned, productive user" you think that grants them the right to make death threats do you?. Sound logic Jdx!. I'm sure if someone made a death threat against yourself or your family you wouldn't be so defensive here. –Davey2010^Talk 12:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, it doesn't. But to a vandal? Well, personally I wouldn't do it, but I do not consider it as a serious offence. Death threat on the Internet? I would laught at it and not treat it seriously. Actually I got such threat once or twice from LTAs (probably as other admins here) and didn't even think about making a drama. --jdx ^Re: 13:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Death threats (and, in general, threats of physical harm) are always inappropriate and off-limits. They are inappropriate when used against an established user, and the same applies when used against a vandal or, for that matter, an LTA. This is so serious that the WMF has created a special team, available 24/7, for such threats (see w:en:WP:EMERGENCY and m:HARM), and advises everyone to "[t]reat all claims [of physical harm] seriously" - so the argument that Rodhullandemu wasn't being serious doesn't justify what they said at all.

Now, I don't think Rodhullandemu's indefinite block should necessarily be infinite. They have a lot of experience, and their contributions to Commons are priceless. But, as others have said, it seems that Rodhullandemu still thinks that message was okay simply because they didn't intend to actually, well, rip that person's head off, and because the death threat stopped the IP from vandalizing. In other words, it seems that the death threat didn't come from a momentary anger/frustration, but from a belief that this was acceptable behavior, which, in my humble opinion, is troubling. As long as they insist their behavior was acceptable/appropriate, I think the indefinite block should stay in place. Ahmad^talk 16:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, of course vandals aren't people. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, that kind of argument («seasoned, productive user») is good enough to keep “some” of us on the clear, no matter how obnoxious their behaviour. A safe example would be INC, who was eventually blocked after being given a few years of 2nd and 3rd chances upon much, much worse behaviour. On the other hand, AJ got exactly one chance to make a misunderstandable joke and bam!, he was gone (not that I think his immediate reaction after blocking was any good). So, pretty much double standards. For what’s worth, I find Rodhullandemu’s threat, even as the obvious joke it is, very unpleasant and unwelcome — it helps creating / mantaining an oppressive environment of constant unsafety.

You know what else does that too? Those double standards: Knowing that one can be disappeared at the first slip of the tongue — either intentional like in Rodhullandemu’s case here now, or as a transparently misunderstood joke as in AJ’s case. And all the while people like INC are kept along, allowed their almost uncceptable behaviour, both riling others into said slipping, and creating / mantaining an enviroment where the newcomer might misundertand that aggressive, obnoxious behaviour is tolerated. Well, it is, but for some some more than for others. If Rodhullandemu’s block were for, say, a week, I’d be nodding along and saying that this is how things needs to be done — but an indefinite block is really bad.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A 1-week block would not have been appropriate. To quote from COM:BP: As blocks are preventative rather than punitive, use a block duration that is proportional to the time likely needed for the user to familiarize themselves with relevant policies and adjust their behaviour. Also consider the user's past behaviour and the severity of the disruption. Death threats are about as severe as it gets, and Rodhullandemu's past behavior (including what was outlined last year) makes it clear this is not a one-off slip of the tongue. I don't think Rodhullandemu needs any time to "familiarize themselves with the relevant policies", the desysop should have been warning enough that threats of any kind are not acceptable. Because of Rodhullandemu's history of incivility and making (usually vague) threats, the only block length I thought likely cause them to adjust their behavior is indefinite. Indefinite does not mean infinite, of course, if they can show their behavior has actually changed, they can be unblocked. AntiCompositeNumber talk 17:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AntiCompositeNumber: Does Rodhullandemu have a record of similar offences? (I don't remember any, but I don't track other people except vandals.) If not, shouldn't he be warned first, as per COM:BP? Because for sure he isn't an "obvious vandal" what would justify instant block. --jdx ^Re: 14:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Jdx: Commons:Administrators/Requests/Rodhullandemu (de-adminship) should have been enough of a civility warning.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not English native, and I don't speak French, so no assessment from my part what the expression "tear away your head" could be used for in these languages. What I know however is that in German there is an expression "jemandem den Kopf abreißen" which literally means the same, yet it is only being used metaphorically, meaning somewhat "to punish", "to put in trouble". (Example: "Wenn du eine halbe Flasche Bier getrunken hast und danach Auto fährst, wird dir niemand den Kopf abreißen, es sei denn du baust einen Unfall" -- "If you have drunk half a bottle beer and drive car after that, no one will tear away your head [the police will not punish you] for that, unless you cause an accident".) I don't know if there is a similar catch phrase in French, but I would be very much surprised if Rodhullandemu meant it literally (and how would "tear away someone's head" ever be possible?), though yes of course, the comment was highly stupid and unnecessary anyhow. If I had to decide what to do, I would suggest 1 month block for incivility (or intimidation/harassment). I'm not sure though what policy on Commons requires an immediate indef block for a good-faith regular with previously clean block log for a comment addressed at an anonymous vandal that in theory may be considered a death threat, if you take everything being said here strictly literal. Regards --A.Savin 13:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Well, there were some issues – that's why he lost his admin bit. But I don't remember anything what would justify an instant block. --jdx ^Re: 14:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are we seriously questioning an indefinite block for someone who (a) made a clear death threat against another user, and then defended said threat with "well it stopped the vandalism", and (b) has a history of incivility across multiple projects (i.e. this didn't appear to be a one-time lapse in judgment). These points, to me, sum to an impression of someone who is incompatible with a collaborative project where everyone deserves to be treated with respect. Thank you AntiCompositeNumber for doing the right thing. All the productive contributions in the world cannot excuse behaviour such as this. firefly ( t · c ) 16:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I am seriously questioning the block. He has history of incivility, but hey, we are not here to love each other. I am not even sure if one can be blocked due to incivility (yeah, I know cases such as eg. Slowking4’s, who basically was blocked because of incivility; yeah, he was annoying, but IMO he did not deserve a block – because we are not here to love each other). Regarding death threats – AFAIK it was Rodhullandemu’s first time so he should have been only warned. Especially that he threatened a vandal, i.e. nobody. --jdx ^Re: 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

"The enemy is not a real person" said no one ever who was in the right. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

When I was young I heard people say to naughty children "Ich reiß dir die Ohren ab!" (literally "I'll rip your ears off!") and absolutely nobody took that as a threat of violence. IMO some people here are suffering from some kind of fogged perception of reality. Therefore I think ACN will be wise and change the block to a temporary one. --Achim55 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

And it's not unusual here in the States for kids to say things like "I'm going to kill you." Adult friends might say something much worse than that after a few beers. That's not the same thing as pointing such threats at total strangers on the internet. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

That stranger is a vandal so screw them. Because you live in the States then you should very well know that in the States (and some other countries) when someone enters your propery without permission and starts destroying your stuff you can not only threat them but you can actually kill them pretty much without consequences. --jdx ^Re: 23:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

As far as I understood it, Achim55's comment was not about children using a phrase. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@1234qwer1234qwer4 I don't think age is relevant. The point is that there is a difference between poking fun at people you know in real life and saying things that sound like threats to strangers online. Brianjd (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Achim55 Probably because the "ear ripper" was a relative or known in some way to that child. Rod and the IP don't know each other. And there's a stark difference between ears and head!. It's not our perception of reality that's the problem here - It's Rod and his incivility or more specifically his threats of perceived violence that's the issue. –Davey2010^Talk 19:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do you think the vandalising IP felt really theatened? I do not. --Achim55 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's utterly absurd - whether they felt threatened or not is completely irrelevant. Should we change WP:NLT to say "we'll only block if the other party is offended by your legal threat against them"? ... No ofcourse not. –Davey2010^Talk 19:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

As A.Savin pointed out correctly that in theory may be considered a death threat, if you take everything being said here strictly literal we can reduce the whole discussion to the question 'take such things literal or not?' and resulting 'was that a real death threat or not?'--Achim55 (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

imho "taking it literal" is besides the point - The comment was still made, a perceived threat of violence was still made. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

A real threat requires two things: intention and perception. So we have here a knife without a blade that lacks the handle. --Achim55 (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The IP is a vandal so screw them and their feelings. Also let me remind you that we are on Commons an there is no WP:NLT. There is even no real COM:NLT. BTW, WP:NLT is one of Wikipedia’s absurdities because legal threats are by definition legal. I have never heard about a country where "I will sue you" is punishable. As opposed to "I will kill you". --jdx ^Re: 23:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I didn't read all the comments but I mostly agree with A.Savin and Achim55, this comment was maybe or maybe not a good thing to do, but in no way this is a true threat, simply because this is an IP. IMO Rodhullandemu should be unblocked and simply warned. At this point Rodhullandemu have not already said a similar thing before and I think there is a serious chance that he will not do that again, therefore a block is not really necessary to prevent him to do it. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I just want to make sure I understand the logic being presented here. If a user says they are going to hunt another user down and kill them, that's ok so long as they (as far as we know) don't actually intend to do it? That's where the bar is, users can just threaten anyone with being stalked and murdered, they just can't actually do it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• This is in no way what I wrote, I think you should temper a bit your enthusiasm for answering tit for tat. This was, in the form, clearly an inappropriate, uncivil and unwanted comment here, but, in the content this is clearly not a true threat. No user has been threatened here, and that's why he thought wrongly to be allowed to do it. The comment was wrong, yes, but this whole thing should now be enough to make him understand that he shouldn't have. Block is not needed here excepted for a punition, and by the way "punition" is neither not allowed by out policies. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Rod's various replies do not show one single iota of a suggestion that what he did was wrong in any way, so while I agree that he should understand by now, he has instead dug in his heels in defense of his actions. He's not going to change, he's been threatening and bullying other users for a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I haven't really interacted with him or know his past so I don't know for potential past actions, sorry. And yes Rodhullandemu should say that he does not consider his actions to be appropriate and that he does not intend to start over. In defense of the first unblock request, it's hard to apologize first when you think that a block is inappropriate in the first place, besides, it is myself what I think regarding a block for this unique action... I hope the community hill unblock him against with no obligation to apologize but with giving him a clear warning, this is my first choice. Otherwise I hope Rodhullandemu can get over his frustration for the block and make things right. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Furthermore regarding potential past actions, an instant block without prior discussion is highly inappropriate. It is clear, for me, that the user is not going to do that again not today nor tomorrow, so a block is here not preventive. And If we have to judge his potential past behavior with this block, it is a bit like if we are giving the verdict before the trial. This is very unfair. And when we know that the cause of all this is an IP only acting like a vandal... Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Ah, yes, "IPs aren't real editors, so threats against them don't matter". That attitude is unacceptable from anyone, much less an administrator. Threats are threats, regardless of whether or not they're made at a registered user. Also friendly reminder that it's easier to find the (general) location of an IP editor than a registered user, so I would consider a threat against one more plausible than a threat against a registered user. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Harassement is a very serious topic within the Wikimedia projects, and to put at the same level an impulsive, though inappropriate, comment made to an IP acting only like a vandal compared to the registered users who really suffer from harassment and sometimes in silence, is a kind of insult to those who are precisely the real victims of harassement. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  No. Harassment is harassment, no matter whether it was impulsive or the victim "deserved" it, and turning a blind eye to an established user doing it is an insult to those who suffer harassment. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Nobody is forced to edit "anonymously". Regarding "real editors", well, for sure the reality is that they are major source of vandalism. AFAIR the numbers can be found on Meta. --jdx ^Re: 00:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  So if this were a registered editor vandalizing, the threat wouldn't have been acceptable, but since it was an IP editor it's okay? Is that the point of your comment? GeneralNotability (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, probably it would be a bit less acceptable. Because registered user has greater chance to see the threat. Although vandal is vandal, no mattter registered or not. Screw them. Anyway, IP editing is evil and I hope that finally critical mass will be reached and major WMF’s projects fix this huge design flaw and turn off IP editing. --jdx ^Re: 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  So since nobody is forced to edit in the first place, any editor should expect to receive unpunished (for lack of a better word, even though blocks are preventative) death threats? Your logic extends exactly to that. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  For once in my life I'm actually fucking speechless with some of the comments here. Just wow. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  It is rather unsettling to see administrators defending a death threat, and others suggesting that anyone who disrupts the project deserves what they get and should be considered less than human. One wonders if there isn't some other motivation behind these increasingly desperate attempts to excuse inexcusable behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  "Defending a death threat" is not about me I hope. And (I think) I know well what a real death threat (here on Commons) is: voilà (admin-only link). --A.Savin 00:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  FWIW another one, this time visible for all (by now; no idea why didn't they on Meta revdelete it): [1]. --A.Savin 01:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Now done. Thanks for objecting to the block of a user who has issued a death threat by providing examples of death threats properly actioned with blocks and locks. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Whether Rh&E is a "user who has issued a death threat" is not obvious at all, and as you can see I'm by far not the only one who is opposing this point; so it's really not helpful to play prosecutor and judge in one person, 1234qwer1234qwer4. Regards --A.Savin 16:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I bet that he was globally locked not for a death threat but because this is a sock puppet of an LTA, globally banned one BTW. Although a death threat from this particular LTA is kinda surprising to me. --jdx ^Re: 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  My point still stands, and since this was a vandalism-only account, it could as well have been locked for xwiki abuse. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Davey2010 Rarely do I agree with impulsive comments like this, but in this case, I couldn't have said it better myself. Brianjd (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you expressing my opinions in a way that wouldn't involve me breaking the NPA page (in all fairness though if a death threat is fine I doubt anything I can say is block worthy at this point). — Berrely • ^T∕_C 21:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• After a second unblock request, I considered that request sufficiant and I unblocked Rodhullandemu. A potential further block should be done only after a discussion here, and after a clear consensus in favor of the block, and including a clear consensus from a part of the administrator team. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  May I just remind you you !voted support on his first unblock (have been indefinitely blocked diff) and you also commented above effectively saying you disagreed with the block... so therefore you should've quite clearly left it to a neutral party!. Just when Commons cannot get any worse. "Bad lapse of judgement" is a fucking understatement Christian. –Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Christian Ferrer: There was at least a majority in favor of a block. I am very disappointed that you decided to unblock wihtout any further discussion. Yann (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Davey Regarding the procedural question I agree with you -- by the way I never stated that I'm against any sanction whatsoever, the RH&E's "death threat" certainly was an uncivil and inappropriate comment, and it is at least controversial if the block should be reduced to the duration already served or to, say, 2 weeks or 1 month. We should try to find a good compromise between treating an otherwise productive user as fair as any other (no matter the not always fair comments by some "rare guests" from enwiki), and preventing possible incidents like this in future. Regards --A.Savin 20:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  We need to ensure we are not giving "productive users" a free pass to behave in a completely unacceptable manner. The unblock by Christian Ferrer (which itself is extremely problematic) very much feeds into a narrative that as long as you upload, edit and curate the project significantly, you can go around behaving however you want. Nick (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  What Nick said^, As long as you upload quality images or as someone put it "a seasoned and constructive editor" you're free to use death threats against people/IPs - I (like everyone else here) don't agree with that and if that's how we're gonna roll then I want no part of this project.

  Yes indefinite doesn't mean forever but as I've very openly stated on his talkpage there's been no remorse, no guilt, no sincereness nothing .... it's just been a pity party and lame excuses. There's no excuses to make death threats and certainly none to unblock the threater. –Davey2010^Talk 20:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Don't you think that the block was also problematic? --jdx ^Re: 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Wow... threats of violence are all OK as long as it's "only" against IPs... FFS... just when I thought Commons couldn't sink any lower into the mire, an involved admin steps in and unblocks against consensus. Brilliant! 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:9816:1424:7638:C8AE 20:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  What consensus? Do you have in mind "rare guests" from enwiki who are not regulars here? And likely bring here some old issues from there? --jdx ^Re: 22:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• The block is not necessary anymore as the user will not do it again, as per our unblock policy. But well, if our community, against our policies, is ready to give a punition block, @community: don't count with me to support a punishment block for this precise case. I therfore oppose a re-block, and if reinstalled, indeed the block have to be lifter and reasonable. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

+++ Hunger +++

And the vultures flew far away in this great blue sky

Was in their eyes and in their hearts something dusky?

Nothing else on the ground was waiting anymore

The animal, not yet dead, will live a bit more.

Christian Ferrer, 2021-11-29

Sorry for this wit if you find it inappropriate, but I'm quite proud of myself having learned English here among you. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have seen nothing from Rodhullandemu that significantly accounts for their behavior. They claim that policy is not sufficiently clear in prohibiting the making of threats. That does not make threatening other people acceptable. They claim that the person they threatened should not have interpreted it as a true threat. That does not make threatening other people acceptable. The section of the blocking policy you cite asks for acknowledgement that the block was appropriate (which is not in evidence) and a credible promise that the behaviour that led to the block will not be repeated (which is open to debate). It also asks that you consult with me first, which was not done (I hadn't seen the second unblock request until you unblocked). Your unblock sends the message that making threats is acceptable, and I am very disappointed in the message you have sent as a representative of this community. AntiCompositeNumber talk 20:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was going to reply here, but this says everything I could have said and more. Awful unblock which sends a very poor message - seemingly that you can do what you want as long as you’re a productive contributor. That does not foster a healthy collaborative environment. firefly ( t · c ) 21:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• (ec) @Christian Ferrer: I don't see any apology, or understanding by Rodhullandemu that his words are not acceptable whoever is the recipient, and that these words can cause exteme stress to people who receive them, even if he didn't mean them. I only see arguments that there are OK because the recipient is a vandal, etc. Yann (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Yann: you may don't see apology me neither. In our policy I don't see "apology" however I read "(...) acknowledgement ... credible promise ... will not be repeated". In its unblock request he said words by words that he will don't do that again. You don't trust him? me yes. I also see that he understood that his behavior led him there, that is a kind of acknowledgement, indeed not for the block itself (to be opposed to a block, or to think that a block is unfair, his own block or that of another, is a right for him, you and me I think. Would you prefer a lie?), but there is indeed an acknowledgement for the consequences of his behavior. So for me the role of the block is now fulfilled. You want to condition here an indef block against apologies: this is clearly what I call punishment and blackmail, and that is against my understanding of our policies. There is therefore no chances that I undo what I have done. Make your choice, find a "consensus" of courageous administrators, reinstall the block and and demand with force your "apologies", or do like me and take a risk by believing that Rodhullandemu will not reapet that behavior again (isn't that what we call AGF?). Nothing specific to add here for me. And I have to go to bed. Good luck. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Christian Ferrer I read through the ridiculously long unblock request, but could not find where the blocked user said they will not do this again. Instead, I found a bizarre defence of their actions that ignores important issues raised here. Can you quote the part where they said they would not do this again? Brianjd (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• @Brianjd: "(...) I would not do the same again", just before the emphased word "Perception"" Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Christian Ferrer Got it. Although I seriously question the wisdom of taking those words literally, given that the surrounding body of text basically contradicts the spirit of those words. Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Question There seems to be strong support for reimposing the block, including three "reblock" comments in a row from admins. I don't know whether a reblock is appropriate, but I certainly agree that lifting the block was out of process (no consultation with blocking admin, and the blocked user did not demonstrate understanding or an intention to change their behaviour). At what point does someone actually do something? Brianjd (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

So much support, in fact, that while I was writing my comment, someone moved the relevant comments into their own section. Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I usually just stick to occasionally uploading photos or changing categories, but this is so egregious I feel the need to weigh in. This unblock was hilariously bad, and I implore Christian Ferrer to revert his actions, barring any consensus here to overturn the block. We should not tolerate death threats from anyone, no matter the target. I don't care if Icewhiz himself shows up, it's not OK to make death threats to other editors. Absolutely shameful that several editors think "they were a vandal, so it's ok". They would have us stoop to the level of vandals. Rodhullandemu should be blocked until if and when he admits his behavior was inappropriate, and promises not to do it again. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Obviously bad unblock, by an admin who came late to the discussion and made a bunch of half-baked remarks that demonstrated they hadn't taken the time to be in full possession of the facts before weighing in. This is the sort of thing people mean when they say the commons community is "broken". Rod is unrepentant about what he's done, and this will only encourage more such behavior. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Y'know, I'm getting the impression here that nobody has actually read Christan Ferrer's unblock rationale. But then, I'm not surprised if that is the case. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

support reblock per the chilling effect. Previous behavior accounted for, not an erroneous block, IPs are humans too, vandals are also humans too, and really this is just sad bureaucracy going against what NPA says. If the community says to block then three admins do not unilaterally decide that the opinions don't matter. There is a strong consensus here that the block was good as is already. Horrid unblock. Sennecaster (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bad unblok you say? And where our policy justifies instant block for such behaviour? --jdx ^Re: 22:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Reblock Rodhullandemu has not shown that they understand why making death threats to other people, even vandals, is totally unacceptable. Given that they have been blocked on Wikipedia for a decade for the same disruptive behaviour, and desysopped from Commons last year for the same reasons, they clearly won't change their ways and deserve the boot, they have been given enough chances at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Reblock - As stated many of times now - No remorse, No guilt, No statement-retraction, No apologies = Nothing has been done nor shown. Allowing this block to stand sets the precedent that death threats are okay providing their made by "seasoned, constructive editors". Death threats aren't ever acceptable period. –Davey2010^Talk 22:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I find it ironic that the UCOC ratification round table was today, which has the goal of creating a welcoming environment for all and preventing situations exactly like this one. Sennecaster (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Regardless the administrative actions, I think most of the comments submitted here by numerous users from English WP are by no means helpful to resolve the situation, add more drama, are biased against RH&E, and make all the conversation TLDR for Commoners, who actually should, if possible, read into it carefully and find a consensus at some point. --A.Savin 22:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  This may be a surprise to you, but some of us "English WP" editors are also active on commons. I have a number of uploads here, some of which I added just a few days ago. That I am more active on enWiki than I am on Commons does not mean that my views on this matter are irrelevant. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Not the homewiki of a user makes his/her comments (un)helpful, but that comments' maturity and informational substance. For me, comments that consistently sound like "The comment by RH&E was a death threat, RH&E should be indef banned, period" aren't helpful. As this claim isn't any informative for me (because: I know this point already, as well as the fact that you are persistently ignoring any statements which suggest that it, while indeed being a stupid and inappropriate PA, hardly can be considered a seriously meant DT that would then justify an instant indefblock w/o prior discussion), the comments aren't helpful, simple as is. This may be a surprise to you, but I know a few very friendly and mellow EN-wikipedians too whose opinion I would respect anytime; though in general of course enwiki is quite a toxic place and honestly I'm glad that Commons ≠ WP. --A.Savin 01:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  A.Savin, I agree that repeating of ideas does cause some degree of clutter, but it is an issue for all concerned Wikimedians, regardless of how often they edit Wikimedia Commons, when the safeness of their contributing environemnt is threatened by administrators who ignore the most basic standards for civility and consensus-making. Vermont (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Reblock - The unblock was out of process and not acceptable conduct. Christopher was involved in this discussion with a clear opinion in favor of Rodhullandemu prior to their unblock. In their unblock acceptance statement, they claimed that their action was uncontroversial and opposed by only one admin, ignoring the community discussion that was taking place here and lying about the state of administrators' opinions. As for the reasoning of the block, which Christopher argues was not necessary in the first place: death threats are not acceptable on Wikimedia projects. It astounds me that this is a point of contention. It does not matter whether the threat could be reasonably carried out, it does not matter who was threatened, and it does not matter how good the threatening person's other contributions are. Christopher, I recommend that you take a read over COM:NPA and the UCoC, and if you disagree with the listed principles of civility and respect, please consider relinquishing your administrator hat. You have the bit to apply community consensus, not enforce your own. Regards, Vermont (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wrong, sorry. Admins only apply consensus when it's not a matter for their own discretion. For example, if an Admin dealing with a DR for a clear copyright violation in which everyone votes "Keep" deletes it as a copvio, that's not "applying community consensus", but it is applying COM:PRP and protecting Commons and the WMF from legal action. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

COM:NPA? You mean an essay under condtruction?   Which, BTW, seems to be a copy of WP:NPA. Anyway, where any of these documents (in conjunction with COM:BP or WP:BP respectively) guarantees an instant block due to a physical threat? --jdx ^Re: 00:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Good point: NPA isn't a policy here. However, it is in the UCoC, and Terms of use. So...the ToU guarantees action due to a physical threat of violence. This generally takes the form of an indefinite block or lock. Vermont (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, ToU does not guarantee any action. All I can see is We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms. And the exercise is reserved for "we", i.e. Foundation’s staff, not for ordinary admins. BTW, as fas as I understand, UCoC is not the law yet. --jdx ^Re: 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

See Commons talk:No personal attacks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Reblock, and desysop. This is unacceptable behavior on Wikimedia projects, and the unblock just allows more bad behavior to continue. --Rschen7754 02:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Rschen7754 Desysop who? Brianjd (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  ...the administrator performing the unblock. --Rschen7754 07:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  @Rschen7754 I thought so. I just wanted to be clear. Brianjd (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Reblock - for all the reasons I and others have stated above. Unblocking out-of-process sends the message that making death threats is acceptable as long as you are a productive contributor - I'm sure I don't need to elaborate on why that is a very poor state of affairs. firefly ( t · c ) 08:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Reblock but not indef "I'm sorry this has caused so much trouble but a lot of that is not my responsibility," Ye gods. Rod made a threat, implied or otherwise, and says the fallout is not his responsibility? What did he think was going to happen? Being an unhealthy 60+ year old doesn't excuse your behaviour. Commons does however give second chances and I think we should give this user of long standing a chance to come back Gbawden (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

+1 --Achim55-aux (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• An indefinite block in general does not mean there is no "chance to come back", but in this case there might have been enough chances given. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Reblock Having seen several other death threats in my wiki-live, the discussion often follows the lines such as “words do not hurt,” “it was a joke”, “I did not mean this seriously”, while many users (like myself) think a death threat does hurt and it does do harm. An experienced user should be aware of these discussions and the sensitivity. From the contribution of Rodhullandemu after the first block, I do not see the intention to avoid this in future. Here a lot of words devoted to procedures, intention and perception, and here several remarks what other people should do or avoid. But no sign or intention to change their own behaviour. In addition, the death threat was excessive to what the IP was doing, their contributions show vandalism(?), in any case deletions of parts of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js talk pages. I would first wonder why? That would have been a first question, not a death threat, like this, only to be seen by admins. Ellywa (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Reblock - It seems to me Rodhullandemu still insists their behavior in sending a death threat was acceptable, because they didn't intend to go kill the person, and because it stopped the IP. As blocks are supposed to be preventive and not punitive, I support an indefinite (but not infinite) block which can only be lifted when Rodhullandemu demonstrates a clear understanding of why their behavior was unacceptable and a clear promise that they will never send any sort of physical threat to anyone. I agree with the argument that an established user should be given a second chance, but, to me, a temporary block only seems like a punitive measure, as Rodhullandemu can just wait the block out and come back with no change of mind. Here, we only want to prevent future physical/death threats of any kind, not punish anyone. Ahmad^talk 11:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Notification for participants Due to the threats of physical harm and other safeguarding concerns (which Rodhullandemu is aware of, as are some of the participants here) I have raised a report with the T&S team. This should not prevent any further discussion of a reblock - this is for information purposes only if anyone else was considering the same. I will add however that on my behalf the unblock significantly raised the level of risk I consider acceptable and prompted the report. Only in death (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• I thought I might comment here, not with a bolded vote, because I'm not active enough at commons, and I don't want to give the impression that there's an enwp invasion. I'd like to make a few points. First and foremost, I do not believe Rodhullandemu's comment that sparked this is a credible death threat, and I think things would be much clearer if people stopped implying that it was. In fact, it was a statement of extreme incivility, with significant threatening and bullying aspects. It may have been provoked by a target who was damaging the project and the user may have had a history of good content, but neither excuse the behaviour. Ironically, the case that sparked off RH&E's ban from en.wp was about his disagreement between him and a user who had a history of good content but would be chronically uncivil when provoked
  My concern here, and the reason I believe that Rodhullandemu should be reblocked, is that he has carried on similar behaviours for many years. Worse, not only has he not acknowledged that there is any issue, he is unrepentant about such behaviour. For example, recently he refused to accept that there are victims of behaviour [2] despite multiple accusations of bullying and harassment at his desysop request [3]. I can give examples where I have been personally affected as I did in the past on this project - however, he's been quite clear that no one should care about that[4]
  Some of the recent behaviours that have been exhibited by Rodhullandemu are very reminiscent of his behaviours a decade ago on en, I can give examples if anyone would like them. These include but are not limited to: suggestions that text was misinterpreted but not giving any other interpretation (i.e. attempting to sow doubt), shutting down conversations to reduce accountability, complaining about their health in the face of criticism (up to and and including threatening self harm) and threatening those who question him. Simply put, Rodhullandemu is willing to manipulate these proceedings with lies, obfuscation, intimidation and harassment and as such I believe he is detrimental to this community. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I know that RH&E often complains about severe health problems, but is there any reason to doubt his credibility regarding this? --A.Savin 15:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  I do not doubt for a moment that RH&E has health problems, and fully wish him well on those. However, his timing and method of raising these health problems are designed to provoke an emotive response. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• I also don't wish to offer a bolded recommendation, at least in part because I am not sufficiently familiar with Commons policy on what to do in such block/unblock situations. I will just say that I think WormTT's description of the problem is accurate. The solution is for those with more Commons experience to decide. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply
• Reblock - without prejudice to a reasonable (=convincing to the community) unblock request that acknowledges the egregious offence committed and the relevant policies (civility and harassment for starters) with the acknowledgement that the indef block can and should be reinstated without warning should any further similar behaviors occur. Also not, for the record, that the unblock was poor—indeed, the unblocking admin acknowledges that they hadn't read this discussion filly before drawing a conclsion—and another admin has themselves made repeated peronal attacks against anonymous editors. All in all, there's plenty of toxicity to go around. Stay Classy. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Yeah, the more "rare guests" from enwiki there are, the more toxicity on Commons.   This is kinda strange and suspicious how Rodhullandemu attracts people from enwiki, most of whom are clearly not interested in Commons. Especially that he was blocked there a decade ago. BTW, what a classy comment: Special:Diff/607873970.   --jdx ^Re: 16:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yep, no problem explaining that one to you; the fact that I have to, though, merely brings your eventual fall from grace slightly closer. As I and the involved admin know, and also as you know-but wish to pretend otherwise-I was venting, and for which I then apologised (I note you don't link to that; neither will I), and the admin understood. Unlike some of your 'classy' comments here, such as "screw them", etc... if you think the toxicity of commons stems from anything other than vitriolic incivility (such as we regularly see from RH&E) and those who enable him (such as you), then you're so far out of sync with project expectations, it's like watching Macbeth dubbed into Mandarin Chinese. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

•   Oppose Please tell me which of our policies would permit a reblock, COM:BP being utterly silent on the issue, when to do so would effectively legitimise wheel-warring? It woud be a brave Admin indeed who would put his bit on the line to do that. Just a heads-up: we don't have IAR here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  So, are you saying that if there's a disgreement between admins, Commons policy gives the second mover absolute authority that can not be challenged by consensus? That would be absurd. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Interestingly, COM:BP is not silent on the issue. It states that "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." which implies that lifting a block without consensus is liable to lead to being re-blocked, and firmly putting the blame on the admin who breaches the consensus. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are we now doing things by implication? If it's not written, we should not be doing it. Simple as that. Fix the policy, don't read things into it hat aren't there. That's anarchy.Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Or alternatively, if something is not explicitly prescribed, then follow consensus? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Or mob rule, whichever you think to be more likely. I've seen pile-ons before, and they're an ugly sight. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, consensus trumps everything, both negating and creating policy. It's at the heart of how every wiki project, in any language, operates. Consensus is what creates policy, and consensus is what sets precedent to override it. Unlucky! Serial Number 54129 (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

So consensus can be used to keep copyvios? That's an interesting idea, but, I think WMF Legal would be on top of that like a ton of bricks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are you really so totally impervious to the way this is going and to the consensus that is clearly developing among your peers? And no, leave off the straw men - consensus is the way to decide things that are not prescribed by policy (and, indeed, to change policy where appropriate). And of course consensus can not decide on illegal policy, and attempts to do so would correctly be stopped by WMF Legal. Anyway, it will be judged by whoever evaluates the consensus and closes this discusson. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

So clearly "consensus does not trump everything". It's that kind of woolly thinking that has got us here. And, TBH, I would much rather be somewhere else. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Honestly, if you read into that "including pages with legal implications" then you most definitely should be somewhere else. But stick around, it might yet happen. Serial Number 54129 (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, Rodhullandemu, doing so will not be wheel-warring. Since our own blocking policy - an official policy - provides a link to w:en:WP:WW, I will explain according to the enwiki policy: please correct me, according to the policy, if I'm wrong, but wheel-warring is when administrators revert each other's actions without discussion. Without a "clear discussion leading to a consensus decision," reinstating the reverted action is not allowed and is considered wheel-warring. WP:WW clearly says, "Resolve administrative disputes by discussion"; it doesn't say don't resolve them at all. Another quote from the same page: "disputes should be settled through civil discussion rather than power struggles". We're having a discussion here. If the result of this discussion, the consensus, is reinstating the block, reinstating it will not be wheel-warring; it will be the right course of action. Ahmad^talk 17:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Look at the way he's screaming at people over at the other conversation: [5]. This is the sort of unhinged behavior this unblock is encouraging. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
•   Oppose potential reblock. Since unblocked the user has not restarted the prohibited behavior, and honestly I don't think he's gonna do it today either, or tomorrow. At top of our blocking policy you can read "(...) blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one." Therefore I wonder what a block would bring good to anyone. I followed our policy "Appealing a block", the user has provided two necessary points while only one would have been sufficiant. 1/he said he won't do it again 2/he provided an explanation of why the block is not appropriate: this was clearly not not a death threat. He could have say "if your continue I'll just break your fingers", "I will crush your bones into dust", "I'll knock your head in", "I will talk your ear off", ect... that was this kind of thing. We could find one hundred of similar sentences, some speaking of different part of the human body, some said in a more or less smart way, some said by children in schoolyards since time immemorial. 99,999% are not death threat and /or are not said in the sense of death threat. And that was said with annoyance and impulsiveness to an IP only acting like a vandal. That was inappropriate indeed, but was obviously not a death threat, so a block for "death threat" is indeed inappropriate. Some said I'm involved, but my god, where do you find in our policy that it is an issue in case for unblockage? otherwise why hundred and hundred of blocks have been removed by the administrator blockers while they are obvioulsy the most involved? Sorry but that logic doesn't take a second and that is not for nothing that the exact opposite is written in our blocking policy "declined by an uninvolved administrator." (emphased by me). My only fault was I did not "consult with the blocking administrator", but 1/ that case was obvious to me and 2/ that was obvious that blocking administrator would have not agreed, am I wrong?. So for me that was too unfair toward Rodhullandemu and I took a decision. Some may say "yes but you should have wait...": ok but for what? just by principle? Sorry but tht is against our policy, go back to the top of my paragraph: "(...) blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one." Reblocking the user at this point would be a stupid punishment, and against our policy. So finaly isn't it an obvious case of unucessary block? obviously I thought so when I performed the unblock. Regards, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 06:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Christian, you say it "was obvious that blocking administrator would have not agreed", so you knew unblocking would be controversial. In the part about controversial blocks at COM:BP it clearly says "To avoid wheel warring, another administrator should lift a block only if there is consensus to do so, even if there is no clear consensus in favor of the original block." So it appears clear that you acted incorrectly by unblocking unilaterally when you knew it was controversial, and you should have sought consensus first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You missed the part "except in obvious, uncontroversial cases", for me the case is obvious though it seems that I underestimate the uncontroversial aspect. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

And to respond to your claim that a reblock would only be punitive now, I think that shows that you still do not understand (or refuse to consider) the full issue here. Is RH&E going to threaten to tear someone's head off today or tomorrow? No. But the whole point is that it is *not* about that one single threat. The lastest threat was just a part of an aggressive approach of repeatedly threatening people that has been going on for years, and which has led to RH&E being desysoped on two projects (including this one). So what would be the purpose of a reblock now? The proposal is that RH&E should be reblocked until he shows a proper understanding that his chronic aggressive behaviour is inappropriate (and not just an "I shouldn't have done that one specific thing" throwaway in the midst of otherwise trying to justify his action), and a proper commitment to adjust that behaviour. And *that* would be the purpose - to bring an end to a decade and more of egregiously bad behaviour. That you are unwilling to look beyond the latest episode, take in the wider picture, and listen to the feedback you are getting from your colleagues, is disappointing in an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

If performed for "chronic aggressive behaviour" an instant block is of course fully inadequat, and is a trial and a verdict made by a single person. That makes the block(s) more inadequat and my unblock more justified . Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I reblocked Rodhullandemu for six months. 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. This block is not a punishment. There is also a consensus that Rodhullandemu didn't acknowledge properly that his words were harassment and attack, even if the recipient is a vandal. He can come back after offering a sincere apology, and showing that he has understood the problem of his behavior. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand this decision, because a) either the "tear off your head" comment was a DT which would of course mean that the only sanction in place would be an indef block; or b) this (as I still believe) wasn't a DT but "merely" an incivility -- but then 6 months are still way too much, especially for the first ever PA block in the user's log. And the fact that the overruling unblock was inappropriate shall not affect the block length I think. Regards --A.Savin 11:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is there a consensus, seriously? Perhaps among these de facto randoms who have come here from enwiki.   Anyway, the strange thing is that a lot of people, including you, do not notice that the original block was controversial and out of line with current policies and practices. Perhaps I am wrong, but I am not aware about other serious Rodhullandemu’s offences. Yes, I have seen quotes/links on the desysop proposal thread and the formal desysop request page, but IMO these are pretty much bullshit (we are not here to be nice and love each other), perhaps good enough for de-adminship, but not for a block. --jdx ^Re: 11:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've been a school teacher. Children are laughing their heads off (excusez le mot) when they see teachers quarreling with each other. Wiki vandals must have fun too, to see us wasting our time like this. Was the remark inappropriate? Yes. Is the punishment block disproportionate? Sure. -- Vysotsky (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vysotsky Did you see any any actual death threats (not like the "rip your ears off" stuff above)? Were the children still laughing after that? Brianjd (talk) 12:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Children can be very cruel. You'd be surprised. Vysotsky (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Vysotsky I assumed that those cruel children were not the sort of children you referred to in your first comment. Brianjd (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just when we thought it was all over...Rodhullandemu has made yet another unblock request. Brianjd (talk) 12:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• To second Vysotsky, one thing is certain the vandal IP has more chance of losing his life by dying of laughter than to dy by losing his head. The two blocks are unreasonable, disproportionate, hermetic to the logic and hermetic to the reallity. And this is why I perfomed the unblock, sorry but I could not resist so much I found it unfair. And anyway I very quickly concluded that any discussion was in vain as the blocker did not see fit to comment while 3 administrators affirmed that the former block was way too disproportionate. What we are making here is a blind justice at an unbelievable level. The mistake have to be corrected as soon as possible. As evidence as that a block was fully unecessary, here is the first reaction of Yann: "I deleted that talk page. @Rodhullandemu Really not nice and unnecessary. Don't do that again". That was sufficiant and Yann's first reaction was the good one. But the block that followed that was not needed and was a bad block, and the blocker did not answered to Achim55, A.Savin or to me when we tried to make him understand that it was not a real threat but a metaphor. Therefore my unblock was justified. The user should be unblocked now. And as regard to a potential warnig for his bad action, now he was warned enough. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

And with these bad blocks you have pushed the user on frustration and defensive, and the things of course became worst. All this could have stopped after that. That is not well done. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:11, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.