Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Retaliatory block without evidentiary basis following UCoC escalation — Wikidata
| Parties | Notifications |
|---|---|
| Johnnytelles (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC) | Filer (no diff required) |
| Madamebiblio (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) | |
U4C member alert: @U4C: Barkeep49, Borschts, BRPever, Civvì, Denis Barthel, EggRoll97, EPIC, Ferien, Ghilt, Luke081515, PBradley-WMF, Superzerocool, Toadspike, ToprakM, Torque, 기나ㅏㄴ. Johnnytelles (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
Description of the problem - (Johnnytelles)
On 25 July 2026 at 14:17 UTC, administrator Madamebiblio applied a 2-week block to Johnnytelles citing "Creating inappropriate pages: Notability policy" (Log ID: 672303047).
The central issue: no specific edit or item was identified
The block notice does not name a single item, edit, or example. This is not a procedural omission — it is dispositive. An administrator who genuinely believes an editor is creating inappropriate pages can name at least one. The inability or unwillingness to do so means the stated justification is unverifiable on its face and unappealable by design: without knowing which specific item violated policy, the blocked user has no means to demonstrate compliance or contest the decision.
This point is independent of what happened in the days before the block. Even if one were to assume the edits were problematic, a block citing "Notability policy" without identifying which pages violates the basic standard of evidentiary accountability expected of administrative actions.
Systemic pattern: 5 blocks citing notability with no item specified
This is not an isolated omission. A review of Madamebiblio's block log reveals a consistent pattern of notability-based blocks without identifying any specific item:
- User:70Juan — 13 June 2026 — "Elementos sin relevancia demostrada. Falta de comunicación" — 3 months — no item cited
- User:Wendy Tatiana Mendoza Aparicio — 14 June 2026 — "not notable items. No response" — indefinite — no item cited
- User:Wikibgt — 15 July 2026 — "Items not referenced, WD:N. Not response" — indefinite — no item cited
- User:VauTee — 15 July 2026 — "More and more items not notable, WD:N. Not response" — indefinite — no item cited
- User:Johnnytelles — 25 July 2026 — "Creating inappropriate pages: Notability policy" — 2 weeks — no item cited
In all five cases, the block reason contains no item identifier (Qxxxxx), no diff, and no link. Notably, when Madamebiblio issued a warning to Wikibgt in June 2025, she cited a specific item: {{subst:uw-notability|Q134587789}}. She is capable of citing specific items when issuing warnings — the systematic omission in block notices is a choice, not an oversight.
The 4-day editing record reinforces this conclusion
Between 21 July and 25 July 2026, Johnnytelles made more than 1,300 edits creating items for Brazilian audiovisual works with verifiable external identifiers (IMDb P345, ORCID 0009-0004-5181-3957). During this entire period:
- Zero edits were reverted
- Zero items were deleted
- Zero flags were raised by any administrator
The block was the first and only targeted administrative action — and it named no examples.
Network pattern: Bovlb signals, Madamebiblio executes
The block did not occur in isolation. A review of prior cases reveals a pattern in which Bovlb flags a user on their talk page and Madamebiblio subsequently blocks that user:
- User:VauTee — Bovlb added section "Notability" to VauTee's talk page on 3 July 2026. Madamebiblio blocked VauTee indefinitely on 15 July 2026 (12 days later)
- User:Johnnytelles — Bovlb posted "A suggestion for moving forward" on Johnnytelles' talk page on 24 July 2026. Madamebiblio blocked Johnnytelles on 25 July 2026 (1 day later)
This pattern does not require that Bovlb and Madamebiblio communicate directly. It is sufficient to note that Bovlb's interventions on user talk pages have been followed, in both documented cases, by Madamebiblio blocking those users — without citing specific items in either block notice.
Timeline of escalation
- 21 July 2026: Madamebiblio denies rollbacker request citing "notability" — an incorrect criterion (rollbacker is based on editorial trust, not item notability)
- 21 July 2026: Madamebiblio issues a formal warning on Johnnytelles' talk page
- 21–25 July 2026: ~1,300 edits made, zero corrective actions by any administrator
- 22 July 2026, 12:25 UTC: Ymblanter publicly states "you cannot be trusted with this flag" on the rollbacker request page
- 24 July 2026: Bovlb posts on Johnnytelles' talk page
- 25 July 2026, 14:17 UTC: Block applied — approximately 74 hours after Ymblanter's statement, with no specific item identified
Why local resolution is insufficient
The blocking administrator (Madamebiblio) and the administrator who made a hostile public statement (Ymblanter) are both part of the Wikidata local admin group. No impartial local authority is available to review an action taken by one administrator 74 hours after another administrator publicly questioned the editor's trustworthiness.
UCoC violation alleged
UCoC §3.2 — Abuse of power: systematic use of administrative tools without evidentiary basis for the stated justification, as demonstrated by a consistent pattern of notability-based blocks that identify no specific item, applied in this case in temporal proximity to a hostile public statement by a second administrator and following a rollbacker denial that applied an incorrect criterion.
Previous attempts at a solution - (Johnnytelles)
- Rollbacker request denied by Madamebiblio on 21 July 2026 (incorrect criterion): Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Other_rights
- Ymblanter public statement 22 July 2026: Wikidata:Requests_for_permissions/Other_rights#c-Ymblanter-20260722122500-Johnnytelles-20260721191500
- Block notice on talk page: User_talk:Johnnytelles#Item_creation_block
- WMF Trust & Safety — Ticket #154174 (submitted prior to this case)
Suggested solutions - (Johnnytelles)
- Precautionary suspension of the 2-week block pending U4C review, given that the block notice identifies no specific edit or item as violating the notability policy
- Independent review of which specific edits, if any, violated the notability policy, and why none were challenged, reverted, or flagged during 4 days of continuous editing prior to the block
- Review of the systemic pattern of notability-based blocks without evidentiary specificity, and whether this pattern constitutes a violation of the due process standards implied by the right to appeal under UCoC §3.2
Previous attempts at a solution - Madamebiblio
The user was duly notified that the items created violate Wikidata's notability policy. The rejection of the rollbacker flag is due to a clear lack of understanding of Wikidata policies. The request was based on the number of edits.
The user is only restricted from creating new items; this is not a full block: they continue to edit existing items and communicating with the community.
Suggested solutions - Madamebiblio
The text regarding the restriction on creating new items, posted on the user's talk page, explicitly states the reasons. The partial block allows the user to add the missing references from external and notable sources.
Other feedback
For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:
- Comments/replies may not be longer than 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 (EDITOR NAME)
Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members
Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.
- Hi Johnnytelles, have you tried a block appeal at wikidata? --Ghilt (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- A block appeal at Wikidata requires an uninvolved administrator. If Madamebiblio were uninvolved in the matters documented in Cases 1–4, there would be no record of Madamebiblio closing cases involving Bovlb. There are four such records, spanning January through July 2026. Therefore Madamebiblio is not uninvolved. Therefore a local block appeal does not provide an independent review of this block.
- Cases 1–4 were filed following explicit referral by WMF Trust & Safety (ticket #154174, Kevin Peterson, 2026-07-22), who indicated this committee as the appropriate channel for UCoC violations where local administrators are unable or unwilling to act. I have requested reopening of those cases on the grounds that EPIC, who formalized all four declines, received oversight rights from Lymantria (respondent in Case 4) three months before the cases were filed, and has 73 documented instances of self-closing threads on Wikidata — the same pattern the cases document.
- Johnnytelles (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
U4C decision
Only U4C members may edit in this section.
U4C member discussion
Accept votes
Decline votes
- You still don't seem to understand that this isn't an appeals venue, nor is it a place where you should be ranting about personal disagreements. The truth about Wikimedia is that you can't always "obtain justice" - sometimes you have to respect that your behavior might have been faulty and that it's something you'll need to work on. Now please drop it. EPIC (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I’ve read through this request and the related discussions on Wikidata. What I see is fundamentally a disagreement over how WD:N was applied to a set of deleted items, and disagreeing with a deletion outcome is not a UCoC violation - which is exactly something we already declined to intervene two days ago. Why are you bringing this to us again? The block itself was preceded by the filer opening substantially the same discussion across multiple venues after being asked to stop, so I don’t find the “retaliation” framing convincing. Wikidata has functioning local processes for both of these issues: the block can be appealed locally, and the underlying notability question is already being discussed in the ongoing RfC on notability reform, which is the right place for it. I would also note this is now the fifth request from the same filer in a matter of days, all raising similar unsupported allegations. Declining, Borschts Talk 18:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- This AI-generated filing is no less disruptive than the previous four. I would appreciate if Meta admins could take action to prevent further filings like this by Johnnytelles. Toadspike [Talk] 01:31, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Agree this is disruptive. Please stop. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- Please address this locally. --Ghilt (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- I don't see any UCoC violation --ToprakM ✉ 11:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
- As above. I don't see any UCoC violation --Torque (scrivimi!) 05:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
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.
- We have seen this. On behalf of the U4C, Borschts Talk 17:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- With 7 votes to decline and 12 active members, this case is declined. Borschts Talk 12:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)