Commons:Administrators/Requests

Requests for adminship

watch

When complete, pages listed here should be archived to Commons:Administrators/Archive.

Please read Commons:Administrators before voting here. Any logged in user may vote although those who have few or no previous edits may not be fully counted.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a unsuccessful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

This request ended on 3 February.--RoyZuo (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor 49

Vote

Taylor_49 (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · deleted uploads · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth)

Scheduled to end: 00:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Having ca 20'000 edits at commons during past 9 years, most of them during last 2 years, I would like to help with the numberous backlogs of this wiki, among others ca 7'000 open requests for deletion, and ca 4000 category discussion requests. While some requests for deletion are extremely difficult, many are trivial and can be resolved by deletion after 7 days or even earlier due to obvious copyright violation or request of the uploader. Also many category discussion requests are trivial and need a speedy deletion only (example). I have been so far closing some deletion requests even without sysop status, limited to cases of obvious KEPT. meta.toolforge.org (very slow) While there are ca 170 human sysops on this wiki, of them ca 120 active ones, probably at least 40 more would be needed to stop the backlogs for further growing, and make them sink to a sane level, and I would like to be the first of 40 sysops appointed during th year 2026. Thank you. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Oppose per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127#Edit warring by Taylor 49 (talk · contribs) asserting videos are 'screenshots', incivility below, and the other opposes below. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly due to the false accusation below and not seeing how the given comment parts were "comments about the matter". --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per below discussion. --Bedivere (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The below discussion contains a false accusation of edit warring, together with some other (possibly true) accusations of "lack of illegitimate sockpuppets", "only claims en-3" and similar stuff. And that fine discussion was started by a fine problem user blocked on several wikis, probably frustrated over the miserable failure of eir own RFA some time ago. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
so your manner to respond to questions and issues is by making up fallacies? Bedivere (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. — ArtSmir (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
please justify your vote Lukas Beck (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Any participant who meets the minimum voting criteria is not required to justify their vote. — ArtSmir (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of fairness ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also ask in case of a Pro vote? How ever - please stop commenting other peoples votes in such a manner. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@L. Beck: read the above comment by Marcus Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree Lukas Beck (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will Abstain Incall ^talk 04:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: better luck next time. _signed,Aafi ^(talk) 08:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't think the candidate is quite ready for the admin role as evidenced by the comments preceding this one, and the noticeboard discussion. Wolverine X-eye 17:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no noticeboard discussion about me. Just a complaint (possibly false) that nobody has ever answered to. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion below. Nothing seems to be going your way. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 06:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Avoding the answers like Bedivere points out… doesn't give me much confidence. — regards, Revi 07:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per below. Nemoralis (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because I don't want to pile on. Jianhui67^T★C 23:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This RFA should probably be closed via Com:Snowball. Geoffroi 01:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad answer to Herby's questions. You confessed, that your userpage is not very accurate, but did not improve it. Taivo (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No major errors have been pointed. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please reveal what the "correct answer" would have been (after ca 10 "oppose" votes have already arrived) so that I can at least learn from my faults. Taylor 49 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage states, that you are indefinitely blocked in eo.wiktionary. You were unblocked there more than 5 years ago. Correct would be to update your userpage. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Taivo! Herby ^{talk thyme} 10:08, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the "miserable failure" comment above (in re. Bedivere's comment). This sort of petty sniping is entirely unbecoming of a prospective admin. Omphalographer (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multiple blocks [1], regardless of when they happened, are not a relic, they're a serious concern for an admin candidate. Being combative, taking no responsibility for their actions, and shifting blame to others are further serious concerns. This user's complete refusal to address these concerns makes it very clear that they wouldn't make a good admin. Geoffroi 01:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
oh come on man.. i got multiple blocks too :(.. lets engage in commons contributions.... modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 11:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support for motivation, hope you see your errors. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 11:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral i've not had bad impression of this user prior to this request.--RoyZuo (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. HurricaneZeta (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While the candidate's active role in community maintenance is a positive, the discussion below reveals a failure to manage the conflict with others effectively. --0x0a (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: saw Jeff G's oppose; a reasonable behavioural report would have certainly garnered attention (which the one he provided didn't garner) and the TA incited a very reasonable response (response to diff) Whyiseverythingalreadyused (t · c · he/him) 11:14, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

how about Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 127#Edit warring by Taylor 49 (talk · contribs) asserting videos are 'screenshots'? good luck. modern_primat^ඞඞඞ^----TALK 03:27, 27 January 2026 (UTC) @Modern primat: I've replaced the URL with discussion link since the link did not take me directly to the thread. This way it does. Feel free to revert if you think otherwise or if this doesn't work for you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
An explanation is warranted I think. Bedivere (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See User_talk:Prototyperspective#"ways_that_are_clearly_false" ... the linked accusation "Taylor 49 keeps edit warring" is obviously false, a look at the history reveals that I reverted only two times with 9 days between ... not really edit warring, after an insulting edit comment "please do not categorize things in ways that are clearly false" by user "Prototyperspective". Also in the following discussion User_talk:Prototyperspective#"ways_that_are_clearly_false" user "Prototyperspective" repeatedly posted personal comments bordering on personal attack instead of comments about the matter. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ping to TP discussion participants, @Prototyperspective and @Jmabel. Let's see what they have to say. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 07:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did never do a personal attack or anything close to it and I see absolutely no reason to do so and am very aware that doing so is very problematic which is why I never do so. Will oppose based on this false accusation. And screenshots are not videos as a matter of fact and the thing you quoted is not an insult and was not intended to be anything of that sort; I was just confused why anybody would categorize a screenshot like that and then revert my correction so I added a little clarification that things should not be categorized in ways that are false, whatever the reasons for doing so are. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging the ping, really nothing to say that I didn't say on the (2 removes) linked thread. - Jmabel ! talk 20:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The user page User:Taylor 49 only claims en-3. Glrx (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
en-3 is common among administrators who are non-native English speakers. 0x0a (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up en-3 because parts of the debate could involve misunderstandings due to language. The meaning of "screenshot" and whether a post was a personal attack. I did not intend to imply that Taylor 49's English was inadequate or a reason to oppose Taylor 49's RfA. Glrx (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misunderstood. 0x0a (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colour me puzzled but why does your user page appear to suggest that you are "permanently blocked" on eo Wiktionary when your global account doesn't seem to bear that out? Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Herbythyme Thank you for that question. This is a relict from 6 years ago. Taylor 49 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lower on the page, where they list "socks", it says, under "illegitimate", "none found so far". In their table of blocks, next to sv.wiki, it says "not yet". This is some very bizarre stuff to go along with the eo.wiktionary detail. Geoffroi 01:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not refer to me as male. Taylor 49 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I've corrected my comment. Geoffroi 04:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that you point out your gender choice or preference (which is acceptable) but decide not to address the issues pointed out above. Definitely not admin material. Bedivere (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Very unclear what to "address" and how. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack removed by Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk · contribs) at 11:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC) ~2026-70906-4 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Who the hell are you? I cannot find a single useful contribution of you at this wiki or any other wiki. Why did you post this comment? Are you maybe one of the registered users who commented and voted here, and deliberately logged out for the purpose of making this silly comment under the protection of those recently activated temporary accounts? Taylor 49 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any pronouns you would like to share? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the candidate chose to answer on my user talk page in Special:Diff/1159437397, rather than here. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Geoffroi. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.