Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/False accusations and abuse of sysop tools for personal advantage on commons

This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Taylor 49 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]	Filer (no diff required)
Bedivere (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[1]
Taivo (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[2]
Prototyperspective (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^(alt) • CA • ST)	[3]

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49

Description of the problem - (Taylor 49)

WIKIMEDIA COMMONS -- False accusation appearing minor at the beginning, but escalated into a one-month full site block, plus permanent block from Administrator's Noticeboard. Type: appeal of an enforcement action under the UCOC and systemic failure to enforce the UCOC.

Chronology:

revert [4] "please do not categorize things in ways that are clearly false: this is a video/screencast, not a screenshot"
conflict with "Prototyperspective" about screencasts resulted in "Prototyperspective" denouncing me at Administrator's Noticeboard c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_127#Edit_warring_by_Taylor_49_(talk_·_contribs)_asserting_videos_are_'screenshots'
(later addition) I deliberately did not answer in an attempt to avoid unnecessary escalation
the complaint got archived unactioned thus I considered the problem gone
I filed an RFA c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Taylor_49 based on my high activity and huge backlogs on that site desperately needing more sysops
the RFA generated hatred and trolling only, and the bureaucrats or sysops of commons did not even close it when the scheduled 7 days elapsed
several days later I posted a complaint at Administrator's Noticeboard [5] and got immediately blocked
unblock request got rejected [6] (plus misgendering)

Violations:

same false accusation placed two times by two accounts setting a bad tone at the RFA c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Taylor_49
notorious incivility on the RFA page, diffs listed here: [7]
possible negative canvassing by third-party or similar
at the Administrator's Noticeboard "Bedivere" speedily closed a case with a clear conflict of interest, ie abuse of tools for personal advantage
"Bedivere" blocked me for one month for no reason. I had posted a complaint. That there are people not happy about a complaint is in the nature of things, ultimately not a reason for a block. Also the complaint of "Prototyperspective" against me posted on same Administrator's Noticeboard two months before did not trigger any block against "Prototyperspective", obvious double-standard. Blocking me for one month for one post is a crass overreaction at best.
The unblock request got rejected agruing that I do not "understand reasons of their block and give a credible promise, that this will not repeat" (the block is abusive, conflict of interest, and massive overreaction at best), and also that I did not edit my user page according to instructions, very strange.

Damage:

While there is a residual chance that the one-month block will expire in a few weeks, I still will not ever be able to use the Administrator's Noticeboard again. I got one month on the first offence (to the degree it was an offence at all), next time I will certainly get permanently banned as a repeat offender. I am de-facto permanently blocked from the Administrator's Noticeboard.

(later addition) Comments by user "Prototyperspective":

> "please do not categorize things in ways that are clearly false" (revert summary)

> "Category contents should always be accurate and this is straightforward principle and it's a long-standing important one" (discussion)

> "explanations why we should categorize files accurately also in this case" (complaint at the Administrator's Noticeboard)

There is clear common pattern in those 3 comments: the user tries to teach me a lesson about whether things should be categorized correctly and accurately, or incorrectly and inaccurately. I have ca 180'000 edits globally and ca 20'000 edits at commons (excluding my bot). So please grant me a minimal level of intelligence sufficient for knowing whether things should be categorized correctly and accurately, or incorrectly and inaccurately. Teaching me repeately (at least 3 times) and publicly a lesson in this obvious question implies lowering my level of intelligence to the degree of not knowing whether correct or incorrect categorization is preferred, this falls unser Article 3.1 Harassment. I don't think that there are many wikimedians around who would appreciate repeated lessons of type "categorization must be correct" or "please insert only correct information", and this falls under Assume good faith. The user made this statement at least 3 times, leaving the chance that this was something different from publicly lowering my level of intelligence very low, albeit not ZERO. I would welcome to hear from the user, either with a clarification (I can have missed something crucial), or with a withdrawal of the statement and an excuse.

(later addition) Unfortunately there seems to be an unhealthy cronyism prevailing among commons sysops, also demonstrated at case Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Commons_and_UCoC_enforcement where a desysopping had to be performed by the U4C due to local failure to hear the case. I oppose the below requested decline, since this is a systemic failure of commons. I defended myself against harassment at the local Administrator's Noticeboard, and got immediately blocked instead. A user repeatedly and publicly lowered my level of intelligence, this falls under UCOC (Article 3.1), and local sysops, despite over 100 in count, keep refusing to even consider that this could have happended. They have locked themselves in preconceived judgements about me. I deny the accusation of trolling written both into the block log (with a block reason containing just one word), and reiterated below, and even here. I used the Administrator's Noticeboard to complain about a user who violated the UCOC, perfectly in accordance with its purpose and with "standard procedure" demanded below. The sysop denied me the right to report a UCOC violation, and to top it off blocked me.

(later addition) Answer to user "Taivo" why I did not edit my userpage (answer and misgendering):

In the beginning it was not clear that Taivo expects an immediate action from me.
It was a trap. Only Taivo knows whether it indeed was such, but the vibe at the RFA was already so bad (recheck if on doubt) that I had no other choice than to assume a trap (pressure me to edit and subsequently link to the diff) and refuse to jump into it. Only User:Taivo knows whether doing the requested edit would have resulted in a Support vote, or nevertheless in another Oppose vote with "per above" or "per below".
Taivo certainly has seen many RFA:s and knows that an RFA is reliably botched already after 2 of 2 Oppose votes. After 5 of 5 Oppose votes doing the requested edit was absolutely pointless.

(later addition) Below one user boasts that I was "roundly rejected". Very true. But why? Because I had to defend myself against harassment (false claims about my intelligence, plus kept edit warring) in the RFA. This is a toxic mixture that cannot end well. What should have happened instead? A sysop should have closed that RFA as aborted. Harassment should be cleared up outside of an RFA. (later addition) User "Pi.1415926535" claims here "will not accept unblock requests over email" that however is explicitly permitted by the blocking policy. Obviously I had not checked the user page of "Pi.1415926535" at commons and simply missed that "hint". Here the user (after having made a mistake) promises to fully revert the bot, still when I rechecked however I had to fix ca 2/3 of the damage myself. Taylor 49 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - (Taylor 49)

discussion with "Prototyperspective" did not bring any result: c:User_talk:Prototyperspective#"ways_that_are_clearly_false"
post at Administrator's Noticeboard triggered immediately a one-month block: [8]
unblock request got rejected with unconvincing arguments: [9]
there is no ArbCom on commons
obviously NOT a case for stewards

Bedivere

I have reviewed this case. To be clear, I did not engage in any abuse of tools or act with personal advantage. The user's claims dramatically exaggerate minor disagreements and past (minor, too) interactions. Frankly, it appears that the user is trolling ndo rather than presenting a genuine issue so my path is just applying DENY. --Bedivere (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Bedivere

I have not engaged in any personal disputes with the user beyond reviewing their requests (including that at the administrators' noticeboard) and responding according to standard procedure. No further actions were required on my part, as I did not contribute to any alleged conflict. --Bedivere (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo

Actually I do not consider myself an involved person. Taylor ran for administrator and I voted. I opposed and explained my vote. Taylor asked an additional question and I answered. Taylor even thanked me. Thanks log

Taylor claimed and still claims in userpage to be banned in eo.wiktionary. Actually Taylor is not even blocked there, but was unblocked 5 years ago. Block log Taylor did not improve the userpage even after other users said that in RfA.

Taylor is not the first person, whom I opposed in RfA due to what (s)he wrote in his/her userpage. I do not bring examples, because this does not touch here, but of course, if somebody insists, then diffs exist.

I distanced myself from discussions about Taylor's alleged edit warring and overall conduct, actually I even did not read them thoroughly, I did not revert Taylor's edits, I did not complain, we did not wrote in each other's talkpage and so on.

I am main administrator in Commons working in unblock requests and probably I will close most of them. No diff for that, but I feel so.

Taylor requested unblock and I considered myself totally impartial. The only reason was "Indeed I had missed that piece of text", which is strange and insufficient reason for unblock. Probably the e-mail to Pi had more information, but I cannot see that. I declined the request and wrote, why.

Two other users (but not Taylor) asked actually the same question about my decline, one in Taylor's talkpage and another in my talkpage, both in Commons, I answered both.

Previous attempts at a solution - Taivo

I said twice to remove from userpage incorrect claim of ban in eo.wiktionary (at first – when opposing in RfA, at second – when declining unblock). Taylor did not do that.

Prototyperspective

Previous attempts at a solution - Prototyperspective

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Jmabel)

I think Taylor 49's post at COM/AN, linked above by Taylor 49 speaks for itself. He was roundly rejected in applying to be an admin, and he should have just dropped it at that point. When you apply to be an admin you are asking for your record to be weighed, and it was pretty far out of line to ask for administrative action against those who weighed it and found it wanting. It is possible that a one-month block was excessive, but given that he seems to see nothing wrong with his own conduct here, I for one would not shorten the block, let alone penalize the other users he is accusing here. - Jmabel (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Pi.1415926535)

I think Jmabel's comment is spot-on. I've been unimpressed by Taylor49's conduct, including emailing me from a different wiki to request an unblock when my Commons user page explicitly says that I will not accept unblock requests over email, and by how long they delayed removing the false block claim from their meta user page. Their filing here includes a claim about being "permanently blocked" from Commons:Administrators' noticeboard, which is also not true. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (Temporary Account)

There seems to be 4 decline votes. Isn’t it safe to assume the caee to be rejected?--~2026-20263-56 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

After reviewing the case I have some questions to (Taylor 49): When the first edit was reverted in Dec 3, there was a discussion in which you participated with another user, and a third user said that you were wrong. I think that in this case you should stop and then initiate a discussion with others to determine what was right. However, on December 11th, you ignored this and redid the edit, and IMO this was the wrong thing to do. Even if you have a point of view, consulting others is necessary. you reverted it three times and this is an "Edit war". Prototyperspective did the right thing [11], Why assume bad faith and why do you call it a "false accusation"? the category's history says otherwise. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ibrahim.ID: Thank you for looking at the case and your questions. The category history shows that I reverted two times only, with 9 days inbetween. In the meantime I discussed with user "Prototyperspective" trying to find a way how to categorize screencasts: c:User_talk:Prototyperspective#"ways_that_are_clearly_false", ie I did exactly what you request: "consulting others". Unfortunately "Prototyperspective" did not come up with any suggestion in the matter, instead focussing on me personally:
(revert summary, preceding discussion) "please do not categorize things in ways that are clearly false"

"No, a screenshot is not a video"

"Category contents should always be accurate and this is straightforward principle and it's a long-standing important one"

ie "Prototyperspective" insisted on me being wrong without coming with a proposal how to do right (other than not categorizing at all, or categorizing in extremely broad categories only). Indeed a third user joined the discussion, but withdrew soon later without having contributed any proposal in the matter ("I didn't even think of the possibility"). While the claim "third user said that you were wrong" is sort of true indirectly at least (said "I agree with Prototyperspective that" but still not explicitly "Taylor did a wrong edit"), it is also insufficient. Wikis are not about blaming, they are about cooperation. I considered the withdrawal of the third user as loss of interest in the matter. The comments of that user are incomprehensible to me. If there is a point relevant for the question "how to categorise screencasts" then I am missing it completely. Of course "Prototyperspective" then chose to maximally exploit the comments of that user when posting the complaint against me, not for the sake of good categorization, but only for the sake of making me look bad.

Taylor 49 (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make false accusation and I did not focus on you "personally" but only the subject matter. I'm sorry my explanations were misunderstood or taken personally. I don't know why you make a large fuss out of this. See also my explanations at c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127#Edit warring by Taylor 49 (talk · contribs) asserting videos are 'screenshots'. I find this is becoming increasingly concerning when it was only a minor disagreement early on. I'm not choosing to "maximally exploit comments"; I'm not interested in this subject at all and try to avoid being involved with this any further and try to just calm things down and clear up potential misunderstandings. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor 49 From my perspective (as a neutral user), I don't see his comments as offensive or hostile. Perhaps you treated it as slightly hostile, but I disagree. He also has a valid and objective point regarding the screenshot/screencast. Most people use "screenshots" for still images, and the fact that some used them in videos might be a mistake, There are many files on Commons that have incorrect categories and this does not mean they are correct. Anyway, you should have consulted other users which you didn't (according to your contributions log). In Short:

The history show that you were the one who start to revert on December 11th and start the edit war.
You should have assumed good faith (part of UCoC and guidelines in most Wikimedia projects ) when someone tells you your edit is wrong; it's not personal.
I also don't see any suspicion of personal targeting. None of the users mentioned had any prior history or disagreements with you.
Regarding others using this incident on you RFA, I also find it objective. the admin shouldn't be involved in edit disputes like this.

Frankly, I find from the page history that you were the first person to ignite the edit war, and you later escalated matters unnecessarily by assuming bad faith that I do not see. You should first understand the mistakes you made. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why did user "Prototyperspective" insist on that "Category contents should always be accurate and this is straightforward principle and it's a long-standing important one"? This does not make sense without claiming that I would advocate inaccurate categorization (assuming bad faith), something that I do not do. This is a particularly manipulating type of harassment. Also the claim "No, a screenshot is not a video" is not something that I ever had wanted to bicker about. One could equally well claim "No, a screwdriver is not a screw". Yet c:Category:Screws contains c:Category:Screwdrivers as subcat. There are presumably thousands of similar situations inside the category structure. I cannot have done something "clearly false". Arguing like "A is not B" is obsessive and obstructive, whereas I was looking for an answer to question "how should A and B, closely related to each other, be categorized".

I reverted two times with 9 days inbetween. Maybe it is edit warring in a very strict sense. Still, many wikis apply a "3RR" rule prohibiting more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. By having committed two reverts 9 days apart I kept a huge security marginal to 3RR. I disagree that the complaint at Administrator's Noticeboard worded "keeps edit warring" was justified by that. I do not want to argue whether edit warring is good or bad. Nobody is free of edit warring, not even commons sysops. Let those provably absolutely without sin throw the first stone. Between those two reverts, I discussed with user "Prototyperspective", and got attacked. I did not revert for the second time for the pleasure in edit warring, did I?

I have read the "constructive suggestions" posted by others above, partially including misgendering, and repeating previous accusations. They do not address critical ingredients of the case pointed above like "user logging out for the purpose of making an insult" or the one-month block with a very weak justification and lacking support in c:Commons:Blocking policy imposed by a user having personal interests in the case. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You reviewed my activity and found one edit that you disapprove. You also linked to the page Edit war in turn linking to

showing something well different from just one bad edit. That edit should be seen in the light of its circumstances:

done only 9 days later
done as defence against insults lowering my intellectual capabilities below the level required for knowing whether correct or incorrect categorization is the objective

So my guilt is limited to one bad edit. Is this really a sufficient explanation for this:

c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Taylor 49

compared with for example

plus the one-month block? I do not care whether I "impress" (see above) someone or not, still, I expect respectful communication and protection from harassment. I did assume good faith, but it got exhausted after several comments like "Category contents should always be accurate and this is straightforward principle and it's a long-standing important one" at c:User_talk:Prototyperspective#"ways_that_are_clearly_false", and even more after that RFA. Taylor 49 (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Clear-cut massive harassment: c:Commons:Administrators/Requests/Taylor 49 ie violation of the UCOC. Also the block was performed by a user having personal interest in the matter, ie violation of the UCOC. Taylor 49 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

Accept votes

Decline votes

It appears that this matter reflects a disagreement with how things happened rather than a clear violation of policy. The appropriate course of action would be to review what led to the block with a calm mind and appeal for unblock through the established Commons procedures.--BRP^ever 14:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself agreeing with BRP. In particular, the comments at the RfA do not seem to be harassment of any kind. The user put themselves forward for community evaluation. The evaluation was uncomfortable for the candidate, and some of the reasons for oppose do seem slightly odd to me, but that's democracy and absent comments that are actual attacks I don't see how that could be considered harassment. I haven't seen concrete evidence that would lead me to believe the block was an abuse of power. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please appeal this locally and criticism is not per se harassment. The RfA indicates that you should also reconsider your approach in general. --Ghilt (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Ajraddatz. --Civvì (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think some editors, including those with characteristics of Taylor, are more likely to face harassment than others. However, I do not think that has happened here as explained by my colleagues. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

This has been seen by the U4C. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]