User talk:Jdx

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at

This is the user talk page of Jdx, where you can send messages and comments to Jdx.

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.
Puzzle x template.gif
If you leave a message here, I will answer it here. So check back later.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there. I will watch your page and reply as soon as I can.

Other Admins

Hi, in a previous request you said you are no longer an admin. Can you please tell me who are the admins in charge of the flags and how can I find out? Best regards. Kamran.nef (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kamran.nef: There are no admins "in charge of the flags". The list of admins can be found here, in the box on the right. --jdx Re: 09:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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: "The block is not appropriate because, according to the blocking policy, the user to be blocked first must be warned unless their account is used solely for disruptive purposes. Additionally, although I was blocked for the inappropriate behaviour and for disrupting Commons to prove a point, in fact I had not violated any Commons' policy or guideline. Also preventiveness of the block is very disputable because I do not have a history of disruptive behaviour. --jdx Re: 08:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
Decline reason: "This unblock request does not address the behavior that got you blocked in the first place, nor does it show any indication that it won't happen again. You specifically set out to get blocked so as to "end [your] career on Commons", and that's exactly what happened. Furthermore, your comments below that you "don't give a shit about vandals and their feelings" strongly suggest that you will repeat this behavior in the future, so this block continues to serve its purpose in preventing further disruption to the project. clpo13(talk) 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.
(Block log)
(Change local status for a global block)

Deutsch  English  Simple English  español  français  hrvatski  magyar  Plattdüütsch  português  suomi  svenska  македонски  русский  हिन्दी  中文(简体)  中文(繁體)  中文(臺灣)  日本語  +/−

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Users can be unblocked, if they recognize the problems and give a credible promise not to continue. I see here neither. I'm afraid, that if unblocked, you repeat the behavior, which lead to the block. Although I personally was against the block, I would not block you for that, but this is not a proper way to request unblock. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Taivo: COM:BP#Appealing a block does not require "recognition" – a valid reason for unblock is also an explanation of why the block is not appropriate based on this and other relevant policies and guidelines, which is clearly applicable in this case. In short, the block is out of process. --jdx Re: 11:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry but no you should under no circumstance ever be warned for making a death threat here never. What BP says is irrelevant and wikilawyering way around this wont help your case. Sure Rod was indeffed and it got lowered to 6 months but common sense would tell you that such comments should never be repeated ... but instead you repeated it so I don't see why you should be unblocked or even see why it should be lowered. You earned your indef block and it's only your fault you're indeffed in the first place. –Davey2010Talk 11:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This unblock request follows a rangeblock for block evasion I put on Special:Contributions/ which was the range that edited twice claiming to be User:Jdx. This range also had no activity for 5 years until the Jdx account was blocked. It seems apparent that Jdx was evading their block within an hour of being blocked and now that evading their block by editing logged out is no longer an option, they have requested an unblock on their account. Just some thoughts for the reviewing admin. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was obviously a good block, a textbook example of deliberately disrupting the project to make a point. The block evasion and wiki-lawyering aren't a good look. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a "COM:POINT"-based block, Jdx I really want to see you return here and I think that we would universally support your unblock if you just admit that what you did was wrong. You should try to look at it from the perspective of the LTA, the Long-Term Abuser you threatened could have experienced severe emotional distress because of your message, you should under no circumstance threaten physical harm to another user, even if they're a vandal. The only two (2) things you have to do to get unblocked is say that you understand that disrupting the Wikimedia Commons to make a point is bad and that threatening other users is bad, I don't think that anyone would object to your unblock if you could admit this, please. You are a valuable contributor here and have been an administrator until a few months ago, just please do not pollute this unblock request with wikilawyering. Also, as I do not believe that user "Jdx" would threaten another user I Symbol support vote.svg Support unblocking them based on believing that the block won't cause further disruption, I just think that admitting the fault of their actions would be good to see further in this discussion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: I was not sure if I should cry or I should laugh when I was reading that part about "emotional distress" of the LTA. Really. So let me state it clearly: I don't give a shit about vandals and their feelings. They are nothing to me. I didn't issue threats against them before because I respect them and their feelings, but because I strongly believe that any form of communication with vandals is just waste of (my) time.
COM:POINT? A block based on an essay? Even WP:POINT is just a guideline. If you don't want this request to be polluted with wikilawyering then don't do it. Anyway, thanks for noticing that I also have done something positive. --jdx Re: 17:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clpo13: As per COM:BP I do not have to address anything when the block is out of process, what, "strangely", you have forgotten to address. Anyway, I'm done. There will be no more requests. --jdx Re: 22:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except the block wasn't out of process - You made a death threat in order to make a point ... If you need that explaining to you (might I add repeatedly) then your block log should also include "blocked per CIR". Just a suggestion but maybe in future Jdx don't repeat naughty things in order to make a point .... Enjoy your new hobbies. –Davey2010Talk 23:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
".... Enjoy your new hobbies." No need to get so hostile towards him.
Please just understand that you cannot insult anyone, even if they are vandalising. There is this vandal that constantly tells me to go fuck my mother and that I should die, he basically leaves me several such messages a week on various Wiki's, the only good response is to calmly explain why his actions are bad. Doing bad things in response to bad actions means that you are also being bad, that is what you have to acknowledge. If a house is on fire then using a flamethrower on it makes you just as guilty as the original pyromaniac. Yes, this is an essay but "Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Commoners. This applies equally to all Commoners: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by an Administrator, as it is to attack any other user." Insulting another user is a form of vandalism, in what lead to the block you were also a vandal. Please just acknowledge that what you did was unacceptable so your next unblock request will be successful. You have been a valuable editor here for years, please don't throw it all away over something this petty. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: Now you have insulted me, just like the stupid rangeblock mentioned above. (Seriously? Face-grin.svg) I have never insulted a vandal on any Wikimedia project, for the reason that I have stated above. Also you have quoted another essay, ehh… And no, "to calmly explain" is not the only good response, I think it may be even worse than insults and threats. The only good response is to block them (or report if you are not an admin), revert and forget. No talking. Actually your attitude kinda frightens (although also amuses) me: "poor vandal that just wanted to have some fun" or that "severe emotional distress" above. I know that your intentions are good, but geez, dude, on what world do you live? Anyway, you are missning the point that I was blocked out of process for a reason that is justified neither by Commons' policies nor common sense. What is important, I am not the first one (and Rodhullandemu is not the only one who I have in mind). All of this provoked by a few randoms from enwiki and our good ole troll Davey; and a few of our admins took these bullshit allegations seriously. If "community" wants to drive out productive users due to bullshit reasons, if there is "consensus" about it among some randoms, then so be it. FYI this whole Rodhullandemu case is just a climax, I started to think about leaving a long time ago, about the time when Zhuyifei1999 had left. So no, thanks, I pass. Do not feel obliged to respond, there will be no further comments on my side. --jdx Re: 18:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so now we see the personal attacks again, anyone who doesn't make commons their home wiki is a "random" and Davey, (who Rod pursued across projects to harass) is a troll. I think we're about at the point where talk page access needs to be revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #498

Tech News: 2021-50

22:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)