Requests for comment/Global ban for Iruka13

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Opening statement

Iruka13 is currently indefinitely blocked on three projects, yet he continues to perform detrimental activities to Wikimedia projects. I hereby request that this user is globally banned.

Habitual behavior

This user is indefinitely blocked from the Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia on the basis of competency issues, abusive behavior, disruptive editing, and harassment and also sockpuppetry on RUWP. Iruka was also blocked on Commons for wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense. His continued behavior might be a risk to the ENWP, since he was once blocked for one week for similar reasons. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Formalities

Criteria

As per the global bans policy, this user meets all three criteria:

The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam. – Same suspicious, less communicative behavior, nothing can be reformed
The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had a fair opportunity to rectify any problems. – Probably warned many times
The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects. – Yes (RUWP, UKWP, Commons, ENWP)

Nominator requirements

have a Wikimedia account; – Yes
and be registered for more than six months before making the request; – Yes (since March 2024)
and have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis). – Yes

Final required steps

Confirm that the user satisfies all criteria for global bans: Y Confirmed
File a new request for comment on Meta: Y Done
Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active: Y Done
Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited: Y Done

Discussion

Support

Support global ban per above – The actions that Iruka13 (
) have done are seriously unacceptale. Dwccb10 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support global ban per nom. They’re clearly trying to game the system by moving to and continuing to contribute in bad faith at enwiki after being banned elsewhere. Dmartin969 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support for global ban as above, I feel the actions that they are doing (repeatedly adding Twinkle templates for deletion) could affect some newer users disproportionately. Meets all the criteria/banned for bad faith in other Wikis, I see no reason for rejection. Trains2021 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that this user still appears to be conducting some form of Wikilawyering. Please refer to the main ANI case GSMflux91 (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked on File/file talk namespaces for refusal to address issues that editors have presented him with. GSMflux91 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Jeff G. ツ (please ping or talk to me) 01:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. IronGargoyle (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sitewide disruptive behavior should be stopped. User:Bgsu98
Support as above. -- KOMISSAR Russia (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above they meet the criteria for a global ban based on consistent disruption across multiple Wikimedia projects. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 15:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A huge waste of editors time, and their often poorly thought-through deletions are a turn-off to newbie editors. They seem to be on en-WP simply to delete images rather than to improve and build the encyclopedia. Their wikilawyering repeats behaviors that got them blocked/banned on three other projects. Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearest example of a public enemy to other editors that I have ever seen in my over-half-a-decade of editing, an antagonistic and uncooperative person. Signed, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"antagonistic and uncooperative" is a great way to summarise their behaviour.Dmartin969 (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking it over once more I have changed my mind to a support per Netherzone, Dmartin969 and Jeff G. Still, if the enwiki community supports issuing lesser sanctions against Iruka instead of a ban, then I see no problem with that either. Gommeh (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--A.Savin (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. --Jphwra (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
--Werter1995 (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from oppose per w:WP:ANI#Iruka13 blocked. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 20:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support per en:WP:ANI#Iruka13's "engaging with concerns". Iruka13 explained his/her view, which seemed to be that the rest of us have only ourselves to blame. Their post showed that he/she failed to see things from other people's perspective. He/she did not understand the difficulty people had in understanding what they actually had to do to comply with the demands. If he/she had wanted to, he/she could have been helpful, but chose not to be.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support -JacobSanchez295 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - en:WP:ANI#Iruka13's "engaging with concerns" shows an attitude clearly incompatible with the mission of the wikimedia project. Iruka13 has shown no ability to learn and correct their behaviors across four different projects. it's also not forum-shopping as Iruka13 is now indef blocked on enwiki, and there is discussion about conversion toa community ban. Aunva6 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Iruka's behaviour on four projects (including the repulsive behaviour on enwiki that got him blocked indefinitely there) clearly suggests that they are not here to contribute positively to the Wikimedia movement, and to be honest, I don't think that his behaviour is something that can be handled by local communities. Therefore, I believe that Iruka should be shown the door from all Wikimedia projects. Hx7 (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose It has been three years since this user's last block was implemented (as far as I can tell). Please provide evidence of current abuse by this user. Sincerely, Faster than Thunder (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lemme check Iruka's diffs, [1], [2], [3] Ahri Boy (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the warnings given to you on ENWP, I would suggest that you wait until Iruka is blocked on ENWP (if they are). Faster than Thunder (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The user @Faster than Thunder opposed the foregoing proposed global block on the grounds that editors should wait until Iruka13 was blocked on the English Wikipedia. Iruka13 has been blocked on the English Wikipedia since January 22, 2026, and thus the opposition point raised by Faster than Thunder has become moot; however, it is unlikely that Faster than Thunder will, or be able to, have anything to say about this on Meta Wiki, given that they have been blocked here since January 11, 2026. Signed, Irruptive Creditor (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not indefinitely blocked in the wiki in which they are most active (enwiki). If enwiki can't find consensus to indefinitely ban them then by what authority can we second-guess that decision here? * Pppery * _{it has begun} 22:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it’s their most active wiki now, the vast majority of their edits came after they were banned elsewhere. They have been banned on enwiki as recently as 2024.Dmartin969 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per PPPery and Star Mississippi's comment below. Additionally, while Iruka's past lack of communication is of concern, they've shown that they are at least attempting to explain the reasoning behind their actions, which is exactly what myself and several others have been asking them to do. Banning them for this is too much I think; the punishment definitely doesn't fit the crime. If the enwiki community supports issuing lesser sanctions against Iruka, then I see no problem with that. Gommeh (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind to a support, see above. Gommeh (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this is an unnecessary measure, and I believe that this participant can improve and become a good colleague of ours. Charlotte Manyk (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.The user's contributions to ru.wiktionary and ru.wikiversity have not raised any concerns. 20,000 comments in the English-language section, with only one block recorded, also indicate that productive work is possible. A global block is not required. Demetrius Talpa (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as overkill at present. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an excessive action; user's contribution in ru-Wikibooks and ru-Wiktionary doesn't raise any questions. Таёжный лес (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - unnecessary ban. User contributes productively on a few wikis, and isn't on some massive disruption campaign. If they're disruptive on en wiki, just block them on en wiki. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion the ENWP community ban addresses the issues brought up here. Should disruption continue on other wikis, given the years long gaps between such behavior, this should be re-addressed in a later RfC. They're no longer an issue on UKWP and RUWP (anyone is welcome to correct me on this, unless they're actively evading blocks there) and contribute productively there from the comments of other editors. This is at best premature and at worst forum shopping at the time of opening. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose feels like forum-shopping as the nominator opened an ANI thread that hasn't gone his way. ENWP can take care of trouble makers just fine. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally, an ANI thread is not a place for things to go 'one person's way' or another. ANI threads do not work like that. They do, however, provide a safe, informative and respectful pool of evidence, if you like, to discuss the issue at hand. This particular ANI thread has attracted significant attention and engagement from multiple editors and administrators; which suggests to me that this is not a reaction to earlier dissatisfaction (not forum-shopping in this instance). I still do not really understand what your point about 'hasn't gone his way' means. GSMflux91 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Opening a thread in another venue to get an editor banned when your original thread did not result in an editor being banned like you initially wanted looks like forum-shopping. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind to provide the links to the original thread that talked about Iruka please, thanks! It is also possible that new evidence has come to light during that period which further strengthens his points: in that case Ahri Boy is perfectly justified to open a new thread. This is not a personal attack on Iruka, we are just tired of their constant trail of disruption across multiple projects. Doing one good (editing AGF in ru-Wiktionary etc) and one bad (copyright police) doesn't automatically make it right, which is exactly why this global ban request has been opened to further debate this :) GSMflux91 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the thread you commented in? Traumnovelle (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to this thread on Meta as the 'other venue'? This seems like a logical escalation from the points we have discussed at the ANI. GSMflux91 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the ANI you have commented in. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No evidence that disruption is inherent. Some constructive contributions elsewhere. JayCubby (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The long reply to the ANI case has an uncivil comment. Which is technically that Iruka is doing the same thing over and over again. Ahri Boy (talk) 14:16, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This RFC is, at best, premature and at worst an abuse of process and a textbook case of forum shopping by Ahri Boy. The UKWP and RUWP matters are historical (around 5–6 years old) and appear unrelated to the COMMONS issue from four years ago. Meanwhile, the ENWP issues (Raised originally at ENWP:ANI by the RFC creator) remain under active discussion, have mixed feedback and to date ENWP has chosen not to site block or ban the user. For Meta to impose a global ban now would constitute an interference with ENWP’s ongoing processes, which are robust enough to deal with any issues. It’s also worth noting that ENWP is the user’s primary and most active wiki. ENWP’s discretion should be respected, and seeking a global ban on the basis of years-old local bans alone would be both untimely and disproportionate. On the accusation of the lack of communication, Iruka13 has engaged with the WP:ANI discussion on ENWP making that concern moot for now. Promethean (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, imposing a global ban in the absence of any recent block or ban (Besides what amounts to a "We need to talk" temporary block to get the user to respond on WP:ANI) would look distinctly punitive, and punitive measures run contrary (and are offensive) to the policies and norms of most Wikimedia projects. Promethean (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but I'd like to comment on His continued behavior might be a risk to the ENWP, since he was once blocked for one week for similar reasons. Enwiki is a big and well established community so globally banning someone just because their behaviour might endanger normal project operations is premature and an overkill overall. In case Iruka13 starts causing disruptance on the project they'd be dealt with rather quickly.--A09|(pogovor) 12:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment as admin who blocked Iruka13 on en wiki in late 2024. The move to en wiki was not block evasion and I see no indication editing en wiki was in bad faith. That said, there's a communication issue present that might merit a block. That doesn't even have en wiki consensus yet so I don't think we're at the level for a global ban. I just commented at the ANI to bring the discussion back on track. I may or may not weigh in here later depending on how the discussion goes. Star Mississippi (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I have since INDEFfed on en wiki for conduct incompatible with an a collaborative environment. I am not familiar enough with meta policies to shift to support especially since a huge piece of their interaction issues on en wiki have an element of language issues. Their last en wiki edit as of this writing speaks to that issue. Star Mississippi (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please wait and see what en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Concern regarding Iruka13 decides. I found dealing with his/her tagging files stressful and frustrating, because his/her tags on files and template messages on my talk page said what the problem was, but not how to fix it. He/she appears to be well-meaning.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Not enough info given Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From the practical perspective it indeed looks like an attempt to override the ENWIKI inability to ban them, using the formal criteria of being banned in 3 other wiki. We are happy that they are not a part of UKWIKI any longer, but Iʼm not sure we should impact the enwiki so much (especially given the user was banned 5 years ago); if ENWIKI is ready to put up with Iruka’s behavior — so be it. --Фіксер (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain (Moved from oppose) Notwithstanding prior statements to which a discussion has been started at Talk:Global_bans, given that ENWP has now enacted a block I'm removing my opposition to this request. Promethean (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]