Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Iruka13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Iruka13 had been nominating still in use fair use images and unused freely licensed files (to the point that they are eligible to be educationally useful on Commons) for deletion. Some people, especially @Gommeh (who uploaded a fair use image indicating the Melusines of Fontaine (Genshin Impact)) might find the tagger not understanding WP:BOLD. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also find that Iruka guy blocked on three other wikis for wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense and sockpuppetry on RUWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have concerns regarding their understanding of WP:BOLD here let alone copyright and fair use. Additionally I doubt that they look at the files in-depth 100% of the time, as evidenced by the fact that they did not seem to realize that File:Dnepropetrovsk 0276s.JPG had been on Wikipedia since 2007 when they put a {{di-no source}} on it with no explanatory message. In regard to the file that I uploaded which they tagged (File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png), they tagged it as PROD instead of fixing the NFUR they saw as problematic, and didn't explain their reasoning as to why they thought it was. Gommeh 📖   🎮 02:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Toddy1 and @83d40m for clarification of nominations against their uploads. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that last file, the PROD did have an explanation (Criterion 8, because the file does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding), and this isn't a problem that could be fixed by editing the NFUR, as it is inherent to the file itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the problem I have with their Criterion 8 argument is, they clearly did not actually read the article the file was used in (or if they did, they misunderstood it), as (quoting myself from the file's talk page discussion): Melusines are depicted in the image, and the image is used in the article alongside a passage describing them and their significance in the game's lore from an out-of-game perspective. If they aren't satisfied with what was said about the Melusines in the article, they could have easily raised a discussion on Talk:Fontaine (Genshin Impact) about it or edited the article themselves. I don't blame them for not responding to the discussion on File talk:Genshin Impact Melusines.png, as I just took another look at it and realized I forgot to ping them. But however, the same can't be said for my comment on their talk page. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same concerns. They seem to be indiscriminately tagging/nomming for deletion for things that either could be easily fixed, or are not relevant. They are banned from commons for harassment and wikilawyering, and I wonder if their coming here is a form of ban evasion. They seem unwilling to communicate using anything other than Twinkle templates. I don't know at what point that become disruptive, but It looks to me that they are not here to build an encyclopedia.–DMartin (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider filing a Global Ban RFC on Meta since Iruka was blocked on three wikis. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose a good reason why they might not be communicating is because they say on their userpage that their English is only at an intermediate level, but that doesn't excuse their behavior. They can always use Google. Gommeh 📖   🎮 14:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if their coming here is a form of ban evasion.

Just one comment on this as I haven't looked into their recent tagging. Blocks apply only to the specific project unless there's a larger ban in place. While I don't know whether Commons uses the Standard Offer, that's something we frequently encourage on en wiki. @Iruka13 is in no way ban evading. Star Mississippi 23:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosing that I have blocked @Iruka13 in the past, User_talk:Iruka13/Archives/2024#December_2024_2 for context. Communication was an issue then too. Don't think I'm Involved, but don't plan on digging into this regardless. Star Mississippi 00:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahri Boy, can you link a few specific examples of obviously disruptive nominations? tony 14:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A CC-BY 2.5 photo that was self-uploaded by a firefighter is being tagged for PROD. I strongly objected, and since the uploader is inactive, this is eligible for move to Commons. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Iruka13 templated File:Dnepropetrovsk 0276s.JPG {{di-no source|date=2 January 2026|help=off}}.^{2 January 2026} They also posted a template message on my talk page telling me that the problem may apply to other files I had uploaded.^{2 January 2026} I had uploaded that photograph in March 2007. At the time of uploading I complied with the rules and standards in force at that time. The big problem I had with Iruka13's behaviour was that the message did not explain what I had to do to comply with whatever the new demand was. I spent about 20 minutes trying different links to see if they explained how to go about complying, and then gave up in frustration, and instead reverted Iruka13's template leaving an edit summary please do not place messages on files that have been on Wikipedia since 2007, without providing any clue as to how to comply with your demand.^[1] I also left a message on Iruka13's talk page.^[2] Iruka13 responded by reverting me on the file page^[3] and templating my talk page.^[4] Since the guidance all appeared to be useless at helping me understand what Iruka13 wanted, I looked at other file pages, and noticed that they had a file information table. So I copied one of those, and pasted it into 14 file pages, with appropriate details for each photograph. It would have been so much easier and less stressful if Iruka13 had posted a message on my talk page telling me that these files now needed to have a file information table, and showing me an example of a file information table.

Since then Iruka13 has happily changed some standard templates on some of these 14 files, for example replacing {{Do not move to Commons|reason=There is no [[freedom of panorama]] for copyrighted architectural and artistic artworks in Ukraine.}} with |permission={{FOP-USonly|Ukraine}}. Presumably he/she thinks this is useful.

The basic problem with Iruka13 is that he/she wants to be a traffic warden for Wikipedia files. If he/she modified their behaviour by telling people how to fix problems (e.g. please add a file information table), he/she might even be useful. I do not know whether he/she has the English-language skills needed to do this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Given their limited English skills, I'm not quite sure how we'd best communicate this to them though. Gommeh 📖   🎮 14:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had an almost identical interaction with them.–DMartin (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I too have the same concerns as editors above, and have had problematic encounters in the past with Iruka13 [5]; I now try to completely avoid them if possible. If the editor's goal is to be helpful, it's difficult to see that since they seem to be trying to delete as many images as possible rather than helping build an encyclopedia. They have been banned from Commons for their behavior (and I share DMartin's observation that they might be here to avoid scrutiny). They are indefinitely blocked on Russian WP for circumventing blocks, and indeffed on Ukrainian WP for harassment and unconstructive behaviors. And previously blocked on en-WP for disruptive behavior. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13 has templated my File:Chinese speaking clock.ogg (obviously, with Twinkle) with {{di-dw no license|date=9 January 2026|help=off}} here. They are trying to be helpful to some extent, but the repetitive manner of them constantly using Twinkle templates will surely not be so good with newer editors who are unsure of what to do exactly, especially under the pressure that 'your file will be deleted shortly after x date'. Of course, this was my fault for placing it in the wrong licence (corrected to PD:INELIGIBLE under threshold of originality later). I'm concerned that doing such actions (repeatedly putting deletion templates up automatically with Twinkle, avoiding too much 'jargon') might break WP:ETN for some people. Trains2021 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just added sources to several logos they had tagged. They posted on my page asking me to add the sources to the articles, not the images. I'll grant, they're taking copyright/licensing seriously, but this is going a bit far and into Actually Incorrect territory. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the above because they were asking me to link on the file page to the page where the file was taken from, not just the file itself. And this is specifically covered in the {{Information}} documentation as correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that is an interesting question. Iruka just tagged two cover images of "All I Want for Christmas Is You" as non-free, because they were being used in an article to identify notable covers of the original song. Has this been definitively discussed somewhere? WP:NFCI seems to imply they're correct, but I'm not sure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka would not just listen to the demands. He hasn't replied to this section yet. I am losing my cool. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He is not required to if he doesn't want to. Gommeh 📖   🎮 19:40, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iruka13: You expressed an interest in discussing this at ANI. Please use this thread.–DMartin (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Falsely warned me three times. I would have proposed a TBAN on using Twinkle. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not sure if using Twinkle as a whole would be overkill or not. If we as a community decide to issue sanctions, they should be limited to images. No reason to stop them from using Twinkle for other things (e.g. to revert vandalism) if they so choose. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting here that a global ban for Iruka13 has been filed at m:Requests for comment/Global Ban for Iruka13. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  They did the same to me. Twinkle ban seem appropriate.–DMartin (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• A twinkle ban will not solve anything. The issue (appears to be) Communication and a lack thereof, not the vehicle for it. Are their taggings correct? Being right does not excuse the lack of communication by any means but allows us to see which issues are in play. Star Mississippi 21:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My thoughts exactly. Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If anything I think a Twinkle ban would force them to communicate more. If, instead of pressing a button, they had to stop and consider their actions they might be more inclined to explain them better. I was considering a Twinkle ban as a less extreme sanction than banning them from the File: namespace(not that I would disagree with that either).–DMartin (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support a temporary ban on the File namespace until they learn to explain their actions better. In my opinion (and I doubt I'm the only one who thinks this) using a translator to communicate here if one is needed because of poor English is acceptable in circumstances like these, and I'd want that to be communicated to Iruka, as I feel like their language skills may be part of what's holding them back. Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just saw they are at least attempting to communicate better (good for them!); see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 11#File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm getting involved here, mainly because Iruka13 indirectly disrespected my self-implemented talk page guidelines, which is to WP:DTTR, but yet they went ahead. They also nominated a fair-use file for deletion for a seemingly invalid reason. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 16:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm getting really tired of this now. In my file Iruka13 stated that that they 'haven't worked with audio files enough to say how exactly this fragment isn't free' (here). Why put up a file for deletion if you don't understand why you want to get rid of it in the first place? They also seemed to have skipped passed the long section talking about threshold of originality in which they seem to have conveniently ignored. This is getting into the territory of WP:SQS. It's nice to see Iruka getting more active though but they need to learn to address the core issue, not to find ways around it! Example here where instead of addressing my point of threshold of originality (backed up by Commons policy), they split the copyright definition into 'text' and 'performance' aspects to try and prolong the argument. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 02:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This may also be a form of wikilawyering, which I and other editors encountered. For example Iruka13 argued that a free image could be created however it would involve traveling over 1000 miles, renting a car and hotel room in another town to track down an obscure artisan on a Native American reservation (it's unknown if the artisan is even still alive) and shoot a photo myself, instead of using an fair-use image of an object with no known copyright. File talk:Zuni wolf fetish with medicine bundle and heartline, carved by Stuart Lasiyoo.jpg. They also suggested that another editor, Left guide recreate the shattering of a glass-backed basketball hoop/backboard so they could smash the glass themself while photographing the event. File talk:Backboard shattering.jpeg. Among other unreasonable suggestions. I'd like to assume good faith however I'm not sure the communication problem is simply lack of English skills. It's unclear what their goal is. Netherzone (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I AGFed until seeing your above example of the backboard shattering. You are right in saying the comms problem is not precisely 'lack of English skills' - it appears as though the user knows exactly what they're doing, and continuing to do so when they have been notified to stop many, many times. I, now, do not Wikipedia:Assume good faith with Iruka. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 23:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming good faith is not a suicide pact. We are past the point of AGF with Iruka; he needs to be blocked from anything involving file maintenance or deletion. His behavior is actively disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with @Bgsu98 and others in this discussion. As a community member I also think Iruka13 should be blocked from dealing with image and media file maintenance and deletions. AFG and patience has been exhausted, and their actions have been a huge waste of community time. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Same here. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if their English isn’t great, that’s no excuse for their behaviour. There’s a Wikipedia in their native language, that they got themselves banned from. That’s unfortunate, but ultimately not enwiki’s problem. We don’t have to excuse disruptive behaviour here just because they got banned from a wiki they can communicate easily on. That’s why I supported a global ban. –DMartin (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. As much as I hate to say this, I think it's time for some sort of sanction on them. Clearly they need to learn they aren't doing things the way we expect here. A global ban, or a block here (I would be ok with either at this stage) is our only option. Especially based on others' responses, I would say our patience has worn very thin at this point. Gommeh 📖   🎮 02:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I thinks this perfectly illustrates that they're NOTHERE, they're here to play copyright police.–DMartin (talk) 05:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am glad to see I am not the only person who is having issues with Iruka13. Their conduct is beyond disruptive. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:34, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright police who selectively chooses from the copyright policy arbitrarily! GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 10:23, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I had the same thought that their behavior is disruptive and arbitrary. Frankly, I don't think Iruka13 should be editing in the area of image files, sound files, deletion proposals or participation at all. These are the exact same areas that led to his block/bans on two other wiki-projects and on Commons. I give them credit for tempering their previous uncivil tone, yet they are still engaging in the same disruptive behaviors (just not communicating as much and relying on Twinkle). Netherzone (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding a diff here: Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_13#File:Dan_Vacek,_Dennis_Schuller,_Anthony_Walsh,_Christopher_Seymore,_2024.jpg of an arbitrary deletion nom of a file that the uploader The Hammer of Thor had provided ticket numbers re: permissions. This could have easily been resolved by a short conversation rather than seeking deletion of the file. Truly a perplexing deletion nom.Netherzone (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh... As I just found out, Iruka went to Wikipedia:VRT noticeboard to discuss that image (old id). George Ho (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing wrong this nomination. Iruka13 went to VRT to ask about the permissions, someone confirmed to him that it has been lacking permission since March 2024, the nomination is absolutely reasonable and the file should be deleted if permission has not been provided in over a year. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Copyright is an important part of the encyclopaedia and dealing with copyright is not 'NOTHERE' behaviour. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment appears to lack some context. Yes, Wikipedia/Commons needs to have active people to combat copyright issues, and this is true. However, the way in which they decide to conduct their activities relating to copyright issues is what truly decides whether they are NOTHERE. For example, one of my own personal experiences is when Iruka started to dodge my answers entirely on the aforementioned file here. At this point I had repeatedly left many messages both on the original file's talk and Iruka's own user talk detailing what I said. Alongside this, policies regarding copyright are very clear, and it seems like Iruka is selectively and arbitrarily choosing which ones to apply to what file. Editors like Netherzone mentioned that Iruka requested a person to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country to take their own photo, which is just ridiculous and inappropriate. I'm sure you can agree with me here. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 20:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Being incorrect about copyright does not equate to being nothere nor is it necessarily a behavioural issue that needs administrator intervention. I have incorrectly nominated files believing they are copyrighted when they were not, and I learnt from it and now have a better understanding of copyright. As long as Iruka does not nominate similar files and has learnt from the experience there is no issue.

  >Editors like Netherzone mentioned that Iruka requested a person to travel thousands of miles to a foreign country to take their own photo, which is just ridiculous and inappropriate.

  Thats how NFCC#1 is regularly applied, it doesn't matter if it is difficult it just needs to be possible. Also Iruka did not request that, Iruka said: 'is it possible to create a completely free image within the next month that satisfies the requests you have made?', Netherzone then responded with 'To answer the "experimental question" - yes, it is possible, if you can pay for round-trip airfare, taxi fare to and from the airport, car rental and gas to drive the 320 miles round trip from the airport to the Zuni Indian reservation, hotel costs for a night or two, plus meals while I try to track down and get a tribal member to introduce me to a member of one of the legacy fetish carver families of the Zuni people to provide attribution to the object creator in the image credits. So sure, if there is a couple thousand bucks you can spare to throw in my direction (paid in advance of course) I'm happy to do that. That's a joke, I'm not seriously proposing that, but it is precisely what it would take, which does not, in any stretch of the imagination, seem feasible for a volunteer editor. So the short answer (not the "experimental" one), is no'. Iruka did not respond to this message and did not request Netherzone to do so.

  She does have some issues with her English literacy but I don't see them as being so bad that she needs to be blocked as most of her FFD nominations are fine. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is that Iruka has not learnt from it. They did not even bother responding to this ANI discussion until after they were blocked; and during the ANI thread they continued on their rampage of spurious claims and things on FfD. A behavioural issue has been identified and an administrator has in fact intervened to stop this repetitive behaviour. Iruka continued to discuss at FfD long after this ANI thread was created GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 23:19, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've looked through the recent FFDs and I see no problematic recent nominations, some will be closed against her but that is part and parcel for any XfD process. The administrative block was due to not responding to the ANI. The most concerning issue is the tagging of own work submissions as 'di-no permission' but from what I can see she has stopped doing it so the issue is resolved. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The file File:Chinese speaking clock.ogg, which was mentioned above as no-licence tagged, was nominated for FFD by Iruka13 a couple of days after the licence dispute. The FFD was early closed by Gommeh and this closure was DRVed by Iruka13. Though noting the concerns raised here, I have considered that two wrongs don't make a right so vacated the closure under WP:REOPEN, with the FFD open again until the correct closure deadline. If however this discussion (here) resolves in a ban, another admin may consider that the outstanding discussion should be re-closed, and I don't object to that. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So… Iruka has continued his vexatious behavior, but has not responded here to anything? Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that the behaviour has continued and there has not been a response here. I am not yet convinced the behvaiour is vexatious, but some of Iruka's edits are looking disruptive. They are also making many constructive edits. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That file would not be copyrightable under applicable law as pointed out by others, so I thought (and considered it very obvious so I did not specify) that discussion should be closed per SNOW. Additionally I doubt that would be INVOLVED, as I believe I would have needed to have !voted in the discussion beforehand. Gommeh 📖   🎮 11:11, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's been a week since the opening of this thread. General consensus is that they are doing disruptive activities along with a multitude of policy-breaking. Although Iruka does not need to respond to the thread, I believe it says a lot about the person themselves, and their true intentions on this platform. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 18:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (Just to save the next person some time, pointing out that the file was moved on Commons to File:Chinese speaking clock female.oga.) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked Iruka13 from File space due to their lack of response to this thread and requested that they address the concerns here. This seemed to be a sufficient measure, as all of the disruption identified here is either in File-space or directly relating to disputes involving it. No prejudice against further action, reversal or community consensus on this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rosguill, does this block include participation in deletion discussions regarding Files? The reason for my question is they are continuing to argue (post block) about Files at DIFF:[6] -- Netherzone (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The block is a block, not a ban. If there is continued disruption and failure to respond here, perhaps further sanctions will be necessary, but they’re not a priori prohibited from commenting there even though it is obviously bad form to do so while ignoring this ANI thread. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder so that the topic was not archived; "addressing the concerns" will be in a few days. — Ирука¹³ 10:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13 has some issues with an editor tagging his/her posts at FFD with tags that give a different reason for their block than the reason given when he/she was blocked. This will delay their response here.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have INDEFfed Iruka13. I did not want it to come to this, and was even opposing above but their engaging underscores the issues raised in this thread by innumerable editors. Enough is enough. If folks disagree, this sub thread can be treated as a block review as well. Star Mississippi 20:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. With regards to their outstanding FFD nominations, should the process continue as normal now that Iruka is blocked? I'm not really familiar with the process. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gommeh, in general they can be speedy procedurally closed, with the exception that nominations that have drawn support (i.e. other editors !voting delete or at least not keep), which should be allowed to run to a regular conclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do that even if you're WP:INVOLVED? Like say if I !voted keep and so has everyone else? Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t be an issue given the clear procedural basis for ending discussion and unanimity of participants in good standing. That having been said, if you’re not comfortable it also won’t be the end of the world if the discussion runs its full length before normal closure. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I think I've closed most of the bad-faith nominations that have had all "keep" !votes.

Regarding Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2026 January 20#File:Genshin Impact Melusines.png, if the article (Fontaine (Genshin Impact)) has 4 non-free images including that one, would that be in violation of NFCC 3a? Gommeh 📖   🎮 17:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: If you want to close the FFD's yourself, then that should be OK. I'm not sure, though, it was wise for you to advise Gommeh to do so because they're involved. I won't revert them anymore, but I think it was a bad idea. FFD typically run seven days and there are several admins like Explicit and Whpq who regularly close them; so, the FFDs won't drag on forever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty typical to see procedurally troubled nominations closed by involved individuals when the opposition is unanimous, as long as editors are courteous and accountable if anyone has questions or concerns afterward. Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_20#File:Genshin_Impact_Melusines.png, however, does have a delete !vote in good standing so it should definitely run to conclusion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Rosguill is also technically WP:INVOLVED in this as Iruka mentioned him under "particulars" right? If I can't close them I don't see why Rosguill should. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:09, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That actually does not cause WP:INVOLVED, otherwise it would be very easy to bureaucratically avoid any and all disciplinary proceedings by just attacking everyone that responds to the situation. One only becomes involved if they are a participant in the content questions at hand, which I'm not. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, gotcha. In any case, I doubt the FFD-closing admins would have reacted any differently than I did, so I'll go ahead and re-close. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:16, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gommeh, I wouldn't do that. I hadn't realized that Marchjuly had already reverted the closes, which I would read as a direct objection, which as I noted before, means it's time to be courteous and accountable if anyone has questions or concerns. I would let the discussions run to normal completion at this point if I were you. The only editor at this point with any business reinstating your close would be Marchjuly themselves. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure about that, as they did say they would not revert further (which I interpreted as them being OK with it), but my point still stands. Anyhow unclosed. Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, my I won't revert them anymore comment meant I'm not going to edit war with you over this; it didn't mean I agree with your closing of the discussions, which to me seems contrary to WP:NACD. I've asked the admin (Voorts) who last relisted the discussions to take another look at them; the discussions will at most last another two days. Voorts or another admin, however, may decide to close them before then. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, that makes sense too. (And I completely forgot some parts of WP:NACD existed... I'll definitely give it a re-read.) Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the procedural closes. The discussions are opened and should continue on their own merits. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think this came from a misunderstanding on my part of what counts as WP:INVOLVED and what does not. That's on me. Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't with INVOVLED so much as I've never heard of there being a rule that we close XfD discussions just because an editor has been blocked for some of their conduct in deletion. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is uncivil to say "lie" in relation to another participant's words, I will say "not true."
If I wrote somewhere "he"/"she" it means "they".
FFD is "Files for discussion" ..wait, it is not "glossary", it's reality — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see three main reasons why this topic has been raised and has gained some popularity:

• participants don't want to read
• participants are poorly informed about the topic they're participating in
• participants want other participants to do what they want

And, of course, I'm [forced to] prove all of this. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• In essence ("Iruka nominates files that are okay")

ANI is a place for administrative sanctions. It's not for discussing content (Should conflicts arise, discuss them on the appropriate talk pages, WP:5P4). You must provide diffs here proving my violations. The violation must either be severe (urgent), in which case a few diffs will suffice, or mild (chronic), in which case multiple diffs will be required. Furthermore, they must be intractable. This means you must have brought the diffs of situations that arose after the FFD/CSD.
I see slightly more diffs here than participants. Diffs leading to "live" files make up half. Diffs after FFD/CSD: 0.
Oh yeah, the diffs should contain the real problem.

How to determine that the editor is nominating the "right" files: something is changing. File description page, the article where the file is located, file is deleted.
These are the exact diffs that should have been given here. Where nothing has changed. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• On interaction with other editors

I no [longer] reply to messages that violate WP:CIVIL – I have the right to do so.
I do not reply to messages whose main meaning is "I'm right, you're wrong": there's no point in this - the administrator will come and remove my tag. (два раза)
I won't reply to messages I previously responded to by posting on the user's talk page when submitting a file for deletion. Because I don't want to.
I do not reply to "arguments" that are irrelevant to the issue. Because that's just a waste of time; well, and often this is point 2. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

additionally

NPOV: 0 uninvolved editors support the idea of ​​"Iruka is wrong"
profPOV: 0 editors working with files support the idea "Iruka is wrong"
concernPOV: No one [of them] supported Iruka. // Ируки ответ: True. They did this in the previous two nominations. They're tired.) — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've answered most of the "concerns". I'll answer the rest with WP:BOOMERANG.

Ahri Boy

Ahri Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor know firsthand about being blocked for working in areas they have little understanding of. But they still continue to do so.

Like most of the participants here, they weren't aware that diffs are required on ANI. The only diff they did submit is currently only visible to administrators. So, this participant has no complaints against me. )

In general, it feels like some kind of umbrella nomination: “I came here to say that some participants are unhappy with another participant. Ping ххх and ууу, say it [for me].”

Yes, I had been nominating still in use fair use images and unused freely licensed files for deletion. No, I don't need to be bold to work in a field I'm good at.

No, I wasn't blocked on three other wikis for wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense. Yes, I was blocked for sockpuppetry on ruWP.

What's your point? — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I almost forgot: our interaction began with this file. The participant couldn't or didn't want to format it according to WP:NFCC. Just like other files. Instead, they wanted another participant to do it for them. Or even the administrator.

What else? When changing a file's license from non-free to free, they simply delete the NFUR and change the license (or don't even delete NFUR). No file source, no description. This is unpleasant in itself, but it also matches Dmartin969's behavior exactly in such cases. ..I'm not hinting at anything! xD — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the mass unjustified removal of CSD tags, after which the files had to be dragged to FFD, and their out-of-touch votes on FFDs. I won't provide links; I'm as lazy as the nominator. ..and some of them I can't even provide anymore. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. Is anyone here bold enough to push this file to Commons! )) — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dmartin969

Since I answered to the core of the "concerns", the participant got their own topic here and I don't want to delay the answer [any further], I will not answer here. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gommeh

A classic case of someone being wrong about something; they try to attribute this behavior to someone else. In this case, it's "reading". The participant didn't read what I wrote. They didn't read the rules I linked to. The participant accuses me of not reading the article... and something about 2007. Subsequently they simply express support for the other participants' statements.

In essence: I nominated a user's file for speedy deletion due to noncompliance with one of the WP:NFCC clauses. The user disagreed with my opinion on the file's discussion page. Another user removed my tag. I nominated the file for FFD. This is standard procedure, and an experienced editor like Gommeh could easily have learned this by reading the rules, asking a question on one of the relevant forums, or by asking a question on the page of any active editor working with files, including me. // Furthermore, the user voted "against" on several of my FFD nominations. Seeing significant support for my nominations, they withdrawed some of them, for which I express my respect (not for the fact itself, but for the ability to reconsider their opinion under the influence of new information). They also attempted to close one of my FFD nominations. However, even after they edits were reverted, judging by their comment, they still didn't read WP:INVOLVED carefully. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And yeah, uploading the second "same purpose" image while the first one is still on FFD... — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the responses at that FFD discussion, I doubt the community at large sees the file I uploaded as being noncompliant with NFCC. There is a decent chance that the file will be kept if the discussion there stays where it is. Gommeh 📖   🎮 13:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1

Since the participant skipped several steps in our interaction, and also presented it all in a certain way, I will have to describe it again.

• I found a file that didn't have a "clear source information".
• I tagged it accordingly.
• I posted a message informing the participant. It contains information on what needs to be done to fix the problem (didn't highlight the sentence(s), я и так участвую в этом цирке не по своей воле).

Thank you for uploading File:Dnepropetrovsk 0276s.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

If I were writing this informational message in my own words, I wouldn't have done it. I have the right to do so.

• They undid my edit with comment please do not place messages on files that have been on Wikipedia since 2007, without providing any clue as to how to comply with your demand, what is "bingo" from "concerns"-points above.
• I added a warning to the editor's talk page about the undesirability of their actions and returned my tag with a corresponding comment. At the same time, I received a warning-message on my talk page with the text above.

Well, in some ways I agree with the participant. It would have been easier for them.. And it wouldn't have been much of a problem for me either. Only they went to ban me on ANI, and I continued working. // {{Information}}+{{own}} certainly looks nice and practical, but there are at least four other simple ways to attribute an image [in this case]. And I probably would have even answered the editors's question about it - despite my position and the already voiced recommendation of what and how to do. If they had asked it. Civilly. Instead of reverting my edit and slapping me with a warning on my talk page.

To sum it up: "I don't read what Iruka writes; let editors spend 10 seconds uploading a file without a source/NFUR/etc., while Iruka spends a minute typing it out by hand." 毎日、毎日、毎日 — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GSMflux91

The participant — indirectly — positions themselves as a "new". Moreover, they has a thorough understanding of how the project works. And they uses wp-slang that even I don't recognize. Again - I'm not hinting at anything! :D

In essence: the same as with Gommeh's case. The only difference is that the participant expressed the desire that I no longer contact them regarding this file.
Luckily, the file was moved to Commons, and now I don't have to go to WP:DRV. Again (nope, this time it's not INVOLVED; at least formally). — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bgsu98

Just active support for my blocking (without diffs, off course). See "3 problems" and "concerns". — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Freedoxm

Prefers to have their file raped in two weeks instead of one headshot. Wants their messages to be respected/readed, but doesn't do this with others. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ICA: The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

1. Direct rudeness

b.personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities

2. Other uncivil behaviours

c. sexual harassment

WidgetKid ^{chat me} 14:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PA and non-appropriate sexual and vulgar harassment, I will be declaring all future texts from this user towards me as propagated threats. It seems like Iruka13 is trying to censor information related to the Assad regime in Syria so that he can appease and apply with Putin's objectives - authoritarianism and censorship. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its an inappropriate comment but instead of comparing him to a child-sex trafficker perhaps go with the more logical explanation of a language barrier issue/translation issue... Traumnovelle (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

logical explanation of a language barrier issue/translation issue... I understand, but I am currently taking his comment seriously, so I will be defending my comparison to him with a sex trafficker; Besides, his comment was clearly intentional. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Traumnovelle here: the original comment is totally out of line (and I only missed commenting on it before because of the weird formatting of how Iruka posted their response here), but the response of preemptively declaring all future texts from this user towards me as propagated threats and extended aspersions of being a Putinist are not appropriate. If you believe an WP:IBAN is necessary, call for one. Given the direction that this thread overall is taking, however, I would recommend just disengaging. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe a WP:IBAN is necessary; I would not like to interact or see this user personally attack me. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears Star Mississippi has beaten you to the punch with a general block (and my prediction that an IBAN wouldn't be necessary was largely based on the expectation that we would in fact arrive at a sitewide block as the outcome here) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to log support for an IBan should they eventually be unblocked @Freedoxm @Rosguill. I do not think it would be sufficient since their conduct was problematic toward multiple people, but that by no means excuses their comment to you. Star Mississippi 20:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sending the reminder; I will log support for an IBan if Iruka13 is ever unblocked. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. IBAN would be necessary if Iruka is unblocked, so that's a support from me too. Gommeh 📖   🎮 23:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't disengage just yet, but I'll take back my Putinist comments. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was edited but he originally said 'equivalent to the harassment conducted by Jeffrey Epstein', which is even more inappropriate than the Putinist comments. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a great example illustrating the correctness of my actions. I nominated a file for deletion using the standard text I use for old logos and alt. album covers:
The image/logo is not located at the top of the article in the infobox, and is not serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject (WP:NFCC#8, 10c / WP:NFCI). Image/logo is not the object of sourced commentary, and is used primarily for decorative purposes (WP:NFC#CS); its omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic.

Here's a nomination for the same file from a much more experienced and civilized editor:
Non-free former/historical logo being used in a WP:DECORATIVE manner in Syrian Arab News Agency#Logo history which fails WP:NFCC#8 (WP:NFC#cite_note-4, WP:NFC#CS and WP:NFG). Non-former/historical logos can be used when either they themselves or the change of branding they represent is the subject of source critical commentary, but they are pretty much never allowed to be in an image gallery type arrangment, which is bascially what the "Logo History" section of the SANA article is. If someone is able to find sourced critical commentary related to the logo itself and how it figured in with the SANA's change in branding, add that to the article and then move the logo near such content, this file can probably be kept; otherwise, there's really no justification for this type of use per relevant policy. Finally, just for referene, the two other foremr/historical logos used in the image gallery aren't licensed as non-free and therefore aren't subject to Wikipedia's non-free content use policy.

Here's my template message on their talk page:

Thank you for uploading File:Logo of the Syrian Arab News Agency (2020).svg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale. If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Here's a message from a much more experienced user, [which] taking into account the preferences of other users:

Just letting you know that I've tagged File:Logo of the Syrian Arab News Agency (2020).svg for deletion using {{di-disputed non-free use rationale}} because it's my assessment that it's current use doesn't comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. There's a more detailed explanation given on the file's page, and there's also information on what you can do if you disagree with my assessment and want to dispute the file's tagging. Normally, I would notify you of this by using {{di-disputed non-free use rationale-notice}} but am posting this instead per your request at the top of your user talk page.

Here's the reaction to my ("bad") nomination:
I've challenged your deletion request. See my summary.

Here's the reaction to good nomination:
(...) I will be challenging your deletion (...)

See the difference? If there isn't one, why pay more type by hand? — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comment to say to a Putinist who is harassing me and whitewashing images related to the Assad regime in Syria. Thank you. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you can see feedback on the validity of my actions on my talk page, as well as on the pages of other editors who agree with or don't object to my actions. I'm referring to experienced editors who don't work with files. Experienced editors who do work with files simply ignore my messages or mark the files as {{db-author}}. — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Blue Sonnet, Stifle, etc

> disruption
"diffs please" — Ирука¹³ 11:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Iruka13 I'm not sure why you've mentioned me, I've done nothing more than post on your Talk to ask that you please engage with the discussion at ANI because others had raised concerns.

I've not made any specific allegations against you beyond the fact that you continued to edit without engaging at ANI, a fact that is self-evident by your contribution history.

If you feel that I have, I would very much like to see the diffs myself because I can't see any evidence that I've posted in this thread before now. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this is the response anyone was hoping for. This doesn't even begin to engage with the substantive concerns presented here, and is pretty much exactly what I told them not to do a few days ago. I'm also not sure why you're claiming that diffs have not been provided; there's tons of them in this discussion. In particular, I find the exchanges at File_talk:Backboard_shattering.jpeg#Tag, Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2026_January_11#File:Chinese_speaking_clock.ogg and File_talk:Zuni_wolf_fetish_with_medicine_bundle_and_heartline,_carved_by_Stuart_Lasiyoo.jpg#Fair_use_rationale to be indicative. Editors are frustrated that you seem to show minimal appreciation of the actual circumstances surrounding the taking of photos to upload to Wikipedia, interpret copyright rules idiosyncratically, assume that there have been violations of fair use in the absence of evidence of that being the case, and at times yourself seem to lack relevant knowledge of copyright rules before calling for something's deletion. The response that at least I was hoping for here would have been an acknowledgment of said concerns and a sincere commitment to engage with them more fruitfully in the future. The issue here isn't an individual edit that broke a red line rule, but rather a persistent pattern of not respecting others' time and effort. Instead of addressing that, you have chosen to respond with an exceedingly long ad hominem against essentially everyone participating in this thread and pretending you can't see links to discussions that demonstrate others' concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Though I think they mean well, their linking to WP:COMPETENCE is of particular concern to me too (per WP:DONTLINKCIR). Similar to how they accused me of not reading through WP:INVOLVED thoroughly, I think it's safe to say they didn't read all of WP:COMPETENCE thoroughly (would this be a minor WP:BOOMERANG?). Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:04, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take more offense that they evidently didn't read this thread if they're claiming that editors haven't identified diffs of their grievances. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That too, good catch. Gommeh 📖   🎮 16:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering I wasn't even involved, they apparently presumed I was because I posted on their Talk page. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in case anyone was wondering why they're blocked on three other projects, I think that's just been explained. The Commons block rationale seems incredibly apt: "wikilawyering, contributing in bad faith, and other tangential nonsense". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given this obscene and totally out-of-line comment (per WP:CIVIL and WP:ICA) and Freedoxm's response to it, not to mention the fact that it seems that Iruka clearly hasn't taken the time to read through other editors' grievances with regards to their behavior (to the extent that they claim others haven't identified diffs of said grievances when that is not true), I sincerely doubt this person is here to build an encyclopedia (they are more likely here just to play police, and that's coming from someone who originally spent most of their time reverting vandals and nothing else) and would support a block or ban per WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:NNN. Gommeh 📖   🎮 18:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support a block: The gibberish above makes it extrememly obvious that Iruka13 does not get it.-- Mike 🗩 19:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

100% this makes it plainly obvious that they're here to argue, not edit.–DMartin (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As someone starting to participate in FFDs, I first thought Iruka13's conduct was the norm. Through different interactions, I've seen how disruptive they've been. I certainly took some cues from them, which I now realize I shouldn't have. Seeing this ANI play out has been a good learning experience for me, but probably not the smoothest path.WidgetKid ^{chat me} 20:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. I see multiple sections above that appear to be signed Ирука13. I am inferring that that is Iruka13 in Cyrillic letters, but they don't appear to be by Iruka13. Who is saying what? At this point, now that Iruka13 is indefinitely blocked, the only issues would seem to be whether to unblock them (which would be a mistake) or whether to formalize a community ban. But I would like to know who is saying what. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Iruka made their comments in Special:Diff/1334245918. They appear to have also referred to themselves in 3rd person while attempting to summarize the discussion, and also quoted other comments at length. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:20, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is poor formatting/English language ability rather than an aim to pretend they're someone else. Probably an AI tool of some variety @Robert McClenon @Rosguill Star Mississippi 14:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any signs of AI, but otherwise agree. It was extremely misguided, but I think they were trying to come off as clever/sarcastic, not intentionally misleading. It didn't help the text's comprehensibility that then other editors then went and replied to individual subsections--I didn't realize until my third pass or so that the comments from WidgetKid were indeed a response to Iruka13 and not Iruka13 quoting someone WidgetKid from a separate discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Iruka13 wrote above: [Freedoxm] Prefers to have their file raped in two weeks instead of one headshot. I agree that this is sexual harassment, however equally nefarious is the implication of being shot in the head and killed. So the implication here is slow torture by rape, or a “quick kill” by a bullet to the head. Files can't be raped or shot in the head, but people can.

This is a horrific thing to say in a community-driven collaborative project based on mutual trust and respect.

At first I thought they meant a photographic headshot, however given the context I don’t think that's the meaning of this extremely uncivil and violent comment. It's not possible for me to rationalize this a "poor English" or a bad metaphor. This is inexcusable behavior, and they were rightly blocked.

I am reminded a bit of my own experience of feeling unsafe around this editor, described in Iruka's ANI a year ago for stalking and making people feel unsafe. Diff: [7] Unfortunately, that discussion focused more on whether their deletion noms were technically correct/right; yet to my mind the behavioral issue of stalking/fear mongering was not fullly addressed. The way Iruka13 dealt with this after that ANI was to basically stop communicating with other editors. Now that they have spoken and expressed such a violent and frightening "preference" to a community member is revealing. This community should always be a place where participants can feel safe from harm, and not have their choices described as rape or a bullet to the head. I know they've been blocked which I guess means the "standard offer" appeal in 6 months, but honestly, I don't want to see them back in 6 months even if they make some "good nominations" or are "right" in their file arguments, or if they understand the nuances of image licensing. Netherzone (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can assume slightly more good faith on the basis that this sort of offhanded but violent threat, regrettably, is normalized in some corners of the internet (and especially among certain circles of videogame fandom). It's disgusting and should not be tolerated here, but I can plausibly imagine someone thinking it was within acceptable norms based on a lack of cultural and language proficiency, because elsewhere on the internet it is tolerated. There's a lot of things that Iruka13 will need to answer for in a hypothetical unblock request, but if they are able to acknowledge their past errors and resolve to turning a new leaf (which includes collegial, responsible communication with other editors), I would not rule out an unblock at some point down the road. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may be acceptable in some wretched corners of the internet, but it sure as hell ain't acceptable here. That comment alone should lead to a community ban, not just an indef block. oknazevad (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I totally agree that it's unacceptable here, and that any path back to editing is going to require a complete and unequivocal disavowal of any such rhetoric. As for a community ban, you're welcome to call for one at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, this was not an offhanded or off-the-cuff remark by Iruka13, they themself stated that they 'spent days orchestrating a response. They know full well what rape means and what a bullet to the head is. Videogamers and others who spend time in the dark corners of the internet don't get a free pass to make such comments. Rape and murder actually happens to real people. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - do you think we should try and assess if there's enough consensus for a community ban? Gommeh 📖   🎮 22:36, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a point? I don't think any admin is unblocking Iruka anytime soon. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they do, I would like a detail reason why. That comment, hooboy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I believe Iruka13 perfectly and deliberately orchestrated this kind of behavior. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents. Yes, it is sexual harassment and is unacceptable. However, it seems to follow some of the common hallmarks of ESL speakers using and applying idioms incorrectly (it does sound a lot like the common one 'kill two birds with one stone') but taken horrifically out of context; and it could be just really badly AI-translated Russian - English. In either way though, unacceptable behaviour. GSMflux91 (✉ / 🖊) 00:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that it was a misunderstanding or using incorrect idioms, I recognize it as a vulgar threat, non-appropriate behavior, and sexual harassment. That PA alone might even be the biggest WP:PA that I've ever received; I'm citing Iruka13's harassment as a major factor in why I requested a username change. Iruka13 being an ESL speaker does not grant or justify him protection of his actions. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 02:16, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Freedoxm, but even being the person referenced in that comment does not give you the unilateral authority to define the statement as a violation of a particular policy, and while I agree the wording employed used unacceptable rhetoric that goes to further support community action, it is hard for me to square that language with this project's definition of a PA. That particular use of that particular word is an example of a rhetorical ploy that is as old as time: using the language of violence (and sexual violence in particular) in a histrionic analogy, either out of intent to be provocative and increase emotive effect, or else from a complete lack of perspective on whether borrowing that metaphorical language is unwarranted in the circumstances. It's obnoxious, caustic, and probably WP:disruptive enough to be considered evidence of a basic WP:CIR issue, but the idea that it is meant to threaten actual sexual violence does not seem to me to match what was actually said in this instance.

Again, I can't stress enough how much of a twit without any sense of proportionality the use of that statement suggests Iruka to be, and I don't think many here are likely to have a problem with it being included as evidence for why the indef (and/or a community ban) is appropriate. But I think it's important not overcorrect and mischaracterize what Iruka appeared to be trying to say. It was hyperbolic and unsettling thing for them to say, but it was an abstract metaphor about how to approach a piece of content, not a threat against your person, and even if we all agree it was not appropriate regardless, it is problematic to conflate the two different linguistic acts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:41, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

rape has multiple meanings and the most logical one here is not sexual assault but instead the pillage/destruction of a location e.g. the Rape of Belgium. The context is about a file Iruka tagged for speedy deletion that Freedxm contested (see history [8]). Presumably this refers to that Freedxm's actions have drawn out the speedy deletion process (hence 2 weeks) opposed to being speedily deleted hence a quick 'headshot'. Either way it is a pretty poor idiom but it isn't a threat towards Freedxm nor is it sexual harassment and comparing it to something like Jeffrey Epstein is offensive to actual victims of sexual assault. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

isn't a threat towards Freedxm nor is it sexual harassment your claim of denying the intentional, deliberate harassment and sexual harassment (very obviously sexual harassment; language barriers aren't an excuse) has already been disproven by multiple users, see above. Even I recognize it as a threat. The only time that you should be denying it is if I hadn't acknowledged it as harassment. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 08:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Folks this is not an interesting or important tangent: the comment was inappropriate, and since everyone agrees about that there is no sense at all arguing about the precise details of exactly what way it was inappropriate. --JBL (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Folks this is not an interesting or important tangent: the comment was inappropriate, which comment was inappropriate? There are a lot of comments and I'm confused. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "Prefers to have their file raped in two weeks instead of one headshot." Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone uninvolved archive this? Discussion has petered out and there is nothing more to be done here given the user is indef blocked and no other complaints have surfaced. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhilesh bhardwaj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

1. [50] contains 15 fake sources
2. [51] has 5 fake sources
3. [52] has 3 fake sources

Northern Moonlight 09:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this looks like a sock. Reported to SPI instead. Northern Moonlight 09:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I want The Wiki Admin User:Diannaa to be warned to NOT to delete the sourced/referenced/cited ECtHR's decisions from the ECtHR's official webstie. She CLEARLY and BLATANTLY misuse her Wiki Admin rights. ~2026-14012-5 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

“Persons wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use other than those listed above, and in particular for commercial use, must request prior written permission using the form available on the website.”

Wikipedia is “commercial use”, since we allow others to reprint our content and charge for it or run ads against it. The material in question is therefore not available to be added to our articles en masse. • a frantic turtle 🐢 11:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just edit-conflicted adding the same comment as A Frantic Turtle. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia falls under "commercial use". Regardless of the fact that you're loud and wrong, this isn't the place for this dispute. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

( Courtesy ping: Aesurias) They appear to be objecting to User:Diannaa's reversion of their additions, and the warnings [54] and [55] on their talkpage - the reversions and warnings (however reasonable) are appropriate to raise here, even if the result is a WP:BOOMERANG against the OP.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a dispute over the inclusion of content the editor did not write warranted them going to ANI, which is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems."

However, now that they're here, BOOMERANG is looking likely. Their contributions just show a history of yelling and abusing other editors. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the all replies. I am struggling to understand one thing: I am a

(i) "PERSON wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use listed above" and

(ii) NOT for commercial use.

ECtHR DOES ALLOW SUCH USAGE!, see above.

I am NOT

(i) a "PERSON wishing to use information and texts on the Court’s website for any use OTHER THAN those listed above" and

(ii) for commercial use.

ECtHR does NOT allow such usage, see above.

There is GIANT difference between these two! Hence, from the ECtHR's perspective, I do NOT have to fill the relevant Form (A Frantic Turtle mentioned) from the ECtHR's perspective. That is to say, the relevant ECtHR's material (a paragraph of the relevant Court decision) is a NON-copyright-protected-material for me from the ECtHR's OWN perspective. So, when I came to WP with that NON-copyright-protected material with the same NON-commercial intent, How it can turn to be a copyright-protected-material!

Also, for the argument "Wikipedia is “commercial use”, since we allow others to reprint our content and charge for it or run ads against it. The material in question is therefore not available to be added to our articles en masse", I would say, WP's ABILITY/POSSIBILITY to allow the others "to reprint WP's content and charge for it or run ads against it, i.e., for commercial purposes becomes an issue ONLY WHEN such an ABILITY/POSSIBILITY turns to be a REALITY/FACT. That is to say, as long as WP's material is NOT used for commercial purposes, how can it be problem from the WP's side? Anyway, I still have NOT understand the above logic of the Wiki Admins. By thwe way, I did NOT revert the relevant WP articles since I wanted to learn the essence of this copyright issue~2026-14012-5 (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The licence to reuse Wikipedia's material – you can see it whenever you click "edit" or even "reply" – doesn't allow us to put burdens upon those reusing our material beyond those of the licence itself. Therefore we can't – and won't – limit what and how our material is reused. One such limit would be requiring someone using our material for commercial purposes to obtain their own licence from someone else for using the text you want adding to articles.

This is not just a possibility or theoretical or the like – our largest mirror, Wikiwand, freely uses our material with adverts and has a paid tier. The moment you add restricted material to an article, you are not only breaking our licence, you're imposing burdens they are not aware of upon them. Instantly. This isn't fair, even though they're a bottom-feeder.

So, no, you're on a hiding to nothing with these interesting but ultimately doomed attempts to litigate around a solid fact. Sorry. • a frantic turtle 🐢 12:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) again. It isn't just a matter of what's legal. Wikipedia has said that text material must be available for commercial use, and we do not control who reuses our material. You would know that if you simply read what you have been asked to read instead of going off on rants. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, User:A Frantic Turtle and Phil Bridger, I finally and eventually understood this issue completely.~2026-14012-5 (talk) 12:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Massive respect for this humble and mature response. :) aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-15171-3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

~2026-15171-3 is only here to troll Talk pages on racially sensitive topics with counterfactual nonsense. (e.g. This tedious rant defending the racist Great Replacement conspiracy theory.) I reverted their attempts at provocation and gave them a first and final warning. I interpret their response to the warning as a threat of some sort. It's certainly an attempt to intimidate. They also reinserted the rant with a paste of my warning.

They claim to have made "countless constructive contributions to wikipedia". As zero such contributions are shown in the contributions for that particular anonymous account it might be worth doing a checkuser to see what other accounts they might have been using and whether any other contributions were similarly, ahem, "constructive". Of course, they could just be bloviating. I think we need an indef either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is engaged in a clear abuse of process. They are a part of something called an edit warring (after having looked up what that means), while imposing their version of an article, and imposing a block on the other person (me) to force the version of the article they want. They are claiming a lot of nonsense by relying on woefully out of date sources in a biography, and are wikilawyering (I looked that up too) over a new source that has been added to show a common sense blindingly obvious update to the article. I did place a warning on their talk page to stop their behaviour but they have chosen to ignore this.

The page in question is Natalie Washington. A quick Look at the edit history will show they are happily acting like they own the article and are preventing sourced changes of out of date information.

It cannot be right that one side complaining is allowed to then also impose a punishment on the side they are complaining about simply to suit their ongoing desire to keep an article at a certain stasis. The user here is happily doing the exact behaviour they are complaining about and handing out a block for…which is hypocritical of them not to realise this. The actions here are a clear abuse of process and absolutely a conflict of interest.

You cannot be both complainant and executioner when you yourself are doing the exact and identical behaviour. It should not be a surprise when someone raises the fact you are behaving identically and with impunity. ~2025-32242-94 (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-32242-94: actually, you are edit warring, and what's more adding unreferenced contentious information into an article on a living person in violation of our WP:BLP rules, and C.Fred and others are trying to prevent that. Hence, you are now partially blocked, and that article is protected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying your first line which is completely unnecessary and inflammatory from you. (No different to going, you started it, from a toddler) Both sides here are doing that so make of that what you will. For the record I have sourced the changes made and the other side is blanket going into we must discuss it to death before it is accepted, before they have read the source in question. It is also not contentious to say that all trans women are banned from playing football in England. It is a factual statement supported by the sources where the subject talks about being banned.

I am (having looked it up) saying is the other side is abusing the processes in the way they have acted, ignoring sourcing, imposing their version, and imposing punishment, all to suit their own end.

You make it out like you I don’t see both sides here. What I am complaining about is how the other user has abused their position and abused the process.

I personally don‘t think you have read the changes or sourcing I have posted and are posting in defence before reading the substance. I could be wrong though and if I am wrong what are the grounds you have for the Fred’s behaviour and exclusion of sourcing?

The content being changed which I have sourced removes sources which are now 5 years old to reflect that ALL trans women have been banned from football and the source is a direct interview with the article subject on being a banned footballer. This sourcing is being ignored and the old out of date and in violation of the need for Wikipedia to only give accurate information in biographies. It is be defamatory to claim the articles subject is still playing football in violation of a ban.

In order to achieve this article stasis they are engaging in edit warring, undue and delaying discussion over the article, which if they had read would show they are demanding discussions on sourced content without reading said sourcing first, and then banning the side making the article compliant with the rules on biographies and sourcing the material and removing out of date material.

The claims of preventing a violation of the biography rules are in fact a defence of imposing a violation of the rules on biographies. ~2025-32242-94 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You were clearly and unambiguously violating WP:BLP policy by adding unsourced content. You were correctly reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "both sides" here. Cleaning up your edit warring is no different than a tow truck driver cleaning up a car accident you caused. The WP:ONUS is on you to build consensus for material that you want to add that is disputed. And I think it's quite clear from your tone and subject that you are the same user of this IP address (an uninvolved admin acting can easily cross reference) that has already been blocked twice before this block, including having TPA removed for personal attacks.. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CFred is one of our most cautious and even-handed administrations. You have clearly been edit-warring, which is a bright-line blocking violation, and being blocked from that article Is about the most minimal sanction available. Shrill denunciations are not an effective response. You are closing in one a more extensive block for personal attacks unless you take responsibility for your own conduct. Acroterion (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for what amounts to long-term abuse. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Miss GEE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this User because he add a lot of unsourced details on articles many time.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've not notified User:The Miss GEE about this discussion. You are required to do so per the instructions at the top of this page when you are editing this page. Further, you've placed no warnings of any kind on their talk page, nor have you attempted any sort of discussion with this person about their edits. This noticeboard is for "urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". You've not demonstrated this nor attempted any sort of communication with the editor. Please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution protocols. If you can't reach an understanding with the editor, then maybe there's a reason to report here. Until then, there's nothing for us to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, i would like to report @MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol for requesting a blocked user, @Shadow. 547 to edit for him which i am not sure how but he has requested him on Discord whilst MunkhtushigTheGreatMongol was blocked. I believe this was to make it on Simple Wikipedia and i would like to request both users to be blocked indefinitely on both simple Wikipedia and the english wikipedia for proxying. As well Shadow has also requested me to proxy for him to create a page, which i declined. I am not sure how to send them as i can't upload images. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have also threatened me with retaliation with having me somehow blocked from the Wikipedia when i confronted them. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You need to notify editors when you bring them to ANI, I'll do that now. We can't do much about Simple Wikipedia as it's a separate project, but has Shadow asked you to proxy edit this Wikipedia for them recently? Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and i have refused the offer and this is why i made this notice. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's not good at all - so that was in January? Do you have a rough date so we can see if it'll affect their current block & some basic info on what they asked you to do? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like few hours ago, from Midnight of Jan 25th to 26th. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 06:02, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If simple Wikipedia is a separate project where can i report them for proxying, personal attacks and block evasion? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with it, someone else might know more. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@HorseBro the hemionus, it's the same as here - report on the admin noticeboard. -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they threaten [you] with retaliation? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have said they have "evidence" and more likely to bluff to do anything. They were also toxic, as they had deliberately harassed me. Where can i send on the screenshots? - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did they contact you on Discord, Telegram etc.? Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On a Discord server i co-own. - The Khan of the universe and the Hoofed animals. (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would send screenshots, etc. to ArbCom using Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 08:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. (Talk:Rowan_Atkinson#Birth_place) User:AndyTheGrump keeps accusing me of not understanding policy, namely WP:USERGEN, when that policy doesn't apply to FreeBMD as it's not user-generated. Please make him stop. Spectritus (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The transcribing of the records is carried out by teams of dedicated volunteers [who join by registering on the website]... sounds like USERGEN to me EvergreenFir (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as not anyone can edit it and the info (which is also in the GRO Index) comes from official documents. Spectritus (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Active Volunteers 12,412 all-time Anyone who asks, by the look of it. And it doesn't matter a damn where they are getting their data from. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The freebmd website is clearly and unambiguously user-generated: see https://www.freebmd2.org.uk/volunteer. And note that Spectritus is arguing that it isn't user-generated, but is a primary source instead - which, given that it is being cited for birth details, would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY, making it an invalid source either way. There are legitimate grounds to query whether the article is currently correct (we have contradictory RS), but this isn't going to be settled by edit-warring policy violations into the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already told you, the policy says a primary source can be cited with a secondary source which is the case here. Spectritus (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a damn how many times you misrepresent policy. You are still wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. Check WP:BLPPRIMARY yourself before you accuse me of lying. And watch your tongue!

"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" Spectritus (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Simply reposting a primary source doesn't make it a secondary source, it's still the same primary source at a different location. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I cited with a Britannica article which is a secondary source. Spectritus (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see what your saying, but if there is a secondary source why is this being included at all? It's certainly not being discussed by the secondary source in anyway. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is. The birth place frpm the birth record is in the Britannica article. Spectritus (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No the Britannia article doesn't mention the birth certificate, even if it mentions the same birth place. Looking at the changes to the article I see the reason you want to include it is to provide evidence for the change to the birth place, that's a misuse per BLPPRIMARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a primary source. It's just some user generated content. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is not user-generated. The info is from official documents and noone can edit it. Spectritus (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What "official document"? M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Birth, death and marriage records. The scans are available on the website. Spectritus (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can post doctored documents on my very nice looking blog and claim that they are official. Will that make them official? M.Bitton (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They're from the government! Their info is also in the GRO index which is a government website! Spectritus (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they claim, while stating We make no warranty whatsoever as to the accuracy or completeness of the data. Did you miss that part? M.Bitton (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not know what the GRO is? Spectritus (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know what reliable sources are and I can tell you that this is not one of them. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm experienced with genealogy, I can tell you it is reliable and the info it has can also be found on a government website and multiple genealogy websites! Spectritus (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bold, baseless and irrelevant claim. The bottom line, you're not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just do some research before accussing me of lying. Spectritus (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing of anything, I'm telling you that you are not a reliable source. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a source. Spectritus (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even after starting this discussion, Spectritus is still attempting to edit-war this policy violation into the article. [65] At minimum, a block from editing the article would seem in order, since Spectritus evidently lacks even the restraint to wait for responses here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you the person in the wrong, not me! Now, please check the policy before you make any accusations. Spectritus (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making 'accusations', I am demonstrating as a fact that you are attempting to edit-war your preferred content into the article, even while multiple experienced contributors here are telling you that you are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. You are wrong! Spectritus (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because you say so? And anyone else who disagrees with you is also wrong? That's a really convincing argument... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am experienced with genealogy. Unlike you, I know what FreeBMD and the GRO are! Spectritus (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to look stupid, or does it come naturally? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're the stupid one! Do some research before making accusations. Spectritus (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• GustavaKomurov (talk · contribs)

Not much editing since July, and the edits since are not from someone here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to harass: Oct 31: [66][67][68], Nov 14: [69], Nov 25 [70], Dec 7 [71], Jan 25 [72][73]. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry, I should have looked more at their past and past warnings when I warned them. Didn't realize how extensive this was. (Would have given a higher level warning.) LordCollaboration (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since WikiNoia has used an LLM to add a substantial amount of unreviewed and unverifiable content to the project, I'm proposing that any editor should be allowed to immediately revert any previous articlespace edit of theirs that does not qualify as WP:MINOR. WikiNoia spent next to no effort verifying their edits, other editors should not be required to spend a hundred times that effort to clean them up.
Noting here that there exists an open LLM noticeboard discussion and a cleanup tracking page. (updated 05:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)) fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Works for me. I've already reverted a few of their edits after evaluating them as LLM generated. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WikiNoia has created a large mess. Needs cleaning. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it would be unreasonable for that not to be allowed. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Blue Sonnet said it better. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There are tons of them, it'll take someone else literal hours to go through them all and that's not fair on them. It's better to have a reset. Blue Sonnet (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and let's also get a discussion going on enshrining presumptive reverts of LLM misuse into policy. Otherwise we'll have to go through this straw poll every time it comes up (which is pretty often and will only become more so). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Thebiguglyalien's thoughts regarding the presumptive reverts of LLM misuse since we've had a lot of issues with them over the past few months or so. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - That which is created thoughtlessly should be disposed of thoughtlessly. Once there's no ambiguity about an editor planting LLM slop in articles, this should, as Thebiguglyalien suggests, be the standard response. Vandals and bigots are probably worse people, on average, but the output of LLM slopfarmers are a far more insidious danger to this project than childish vandalism. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I know people use the word 'slop' as punishment to gross out LLM users, but 'slopfarming' is incredibly disgusting. Congratulations. ~2026-56278-1 (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Slop is the nice version of the word that I'd personally prefer. Calling them LLM beignets would make them too tasty, and "farm-to-desktop, data-churned, artisan spoilation" is both unwieldy and vague. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Christopher Hitchens, and support making it a policy (preferably one line or so, we don't need entire paragraphs of minutiae that will derail the policy proposal). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is the purpose of CSD G15. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Challenge Can one of the people who opposes a blanket ban on AI use in composing article text or discussion posts please point to a single example of such use which has done anything other than inject a load of crap into the Wikipedia body, and wasted the time of everyone withing hearing distance? Thanks. EEng 13:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  +1. Because sooner or later, unless the editoriat gets its collective act together and enact stringent anti-LLM policies before it's too damn late, we're going to have the clock reset to 20+ years ago, where large stretches of the public and academia believed Wikipedia too unreliable to be trusted. Only this time, they'll be right. Ravenswing 16:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, WP:SUICIDEPACT is not universally adopted by editors. So, until the overt, existential threat that LLMs pose to the Wiki project becomes absolutely obvious to everyone, there will be a significant percentage of editors who, simply because there's some theoretical possibility that someone, somewhere, can or did make a useful edit with LLMs, won't take a firm stand against them. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support but also, this is allowed already. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support - editor time is a valuable resource, and should not be wasted on individually reviewing an editor's contributions when it has been shown that that editor is habitually submitting LLM-hallucinated crap. If any of the information that they added is relevant and verifiable, somebody else will eventually add it properly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Porya Azizi4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All of their recent edits have been them doing this, you can just look through his contributions Special:Contributions/Porya Azizi4 Luka Maglc (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting at WP:AIV for a bit as a sock of User:Porya Azizi. echidnalives - talk - edits 11:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me, blocked. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m not entirely sure whether this is the right place to report this but the user User talk:Papapici91 has repeatedly been vandalising, mainly reverting a page that was deleted via Speedy deletion, he also told another editor to “go F yourself” on his talk page, which I’m sure is not the kind of behaviour Wikipedia condones. It appears he has just returned from a long absence so perhaps this complaint is too soon, just thought I would inform on this matter. Please correct me if I am wrong. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Every single mainspace edit in user's history was either deleted or reverted. The page they created was quite inappropriate for Wikipedia. Add that to the personal attack: indeffed. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just filed for a speedy on Papapici91's sandbox, which has another iteration of the hoax page that was previously G3'ed. Ravenswing 12:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you guys are really efficient, blocked within 30 minutes of the report, perhaps you should join my local council 😂 they certainly need to be taught on efficiency. Mwen Sé Kéyòl Translator-a (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Noticing some repeated vandalism using similar type of edits by multiple IP users:

• ~2026-54939-3 (talk · contribs) - edits [111] and [112]
• ~2026-57090-8 (talk · contribs) - edits [113] and [114]

Not sure if there's a larger pattern here, but the edits are very similar. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given the “number of accounts on associated IPs” is the same I’d guess these are also the same IP address. IndigoManedWolf (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphora93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Creating articles with LLM after level 4/4im warning in November at Guenter Teubner. Also repeatadey creating articles after their move to the dratspace. Kora ^^ (she/her) ^{say hi!}/_{what I've done} 01:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]