Requests for comment/Global ban for R3YBOl
The following request for comments is closed. Closed as invalid, as neither the global ban criteria nor the nominator criteria is met. EPIC (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Summary
I am requesting a global ban for the user R3YBOl due to a consistent pattern of disruptive behavior across multiple Wikimedia projects. This includes sockpuppetry, use of racial slurs, bad-faith editing, and pushing biased points of view, particularly anti-Kurdish. The evidence below outlines these concerns.
Evidence
1. Sockpuppetry on Arabic Wikipedia
The user was blocked on Arabic Wikipedia for sockpuppetry:
https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/تصنيف:صانعو_دمى_جوارب/ابا_خشم_السندس
Despite this, the user has been actively involved in SPI cases on English Wikipedia, often targeting other editors, primarily Kurdish editors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurdo7aladen/Archive
2. Use of Racial Slurs
The user has used racial epithets such as "النيقر الأبيض" (white n****r) and “زنج”:
https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=نقاش_المستخدم:Moha7817&oldid=69717668
https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=نقاش_المستخدم:Moha7817&oldid=69148936
https://ar.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=نقاش_المستخدم:Moha7817&oldid=69149927
3. Misrepresentation of Language Skills
The user previously claimed fluency in Kurdish but later removed this claim without explanation:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R3YBOl&oldid=1299691424
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:R3YBOl&oldid=1299936090
Additionally, the user misrepresented Kurdish terms such as “Kuripenjwen”:
4. Inconsistent Use of Sources
The user has displayed contradictory stances on the reliability of sources depending on the agenda:
Used Ark News as a reference in an article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Altun_Kupri_(2017)&oldid=1300987671
Dismissed the same source as unreliable in the article’s talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Altun_Kupri_(2017)#c-R3YBOl-20250714143300
A similar pattern is evident with Kurdistan24 (K24):
The user cited K24 in articles but rejected it when used by others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Persecution_of_Feyli_Kurds_in_Ba%27athist_Iraq#c-R3YBOl-20250621070200
In here on the battle of altun kupri he removes k24 and calls it unreliable, but later he adds it when it suits him. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Altun_Kupri_(2017)&diff=prev&oldid=1300351416
5. POV Pushing / Anti-Kurdish Bias
The user has removed references to “Kurdistan” from articles without strong justification:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adawiyya#c-R3YBOl-20250719085400-Ilamxan-20250719044100
Reverted additions of “Kurdistan” for unclear reasons:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Iraq&oldid=1300689886
The user has also rejected third-party mediators and neutral discussions:
Now in the link down below this paragraph, something very interesting happens.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Altun_Kupri_(2017)&diff=prev&oldid=1300459268
Now let's explain it and on why it's pov pushing, first we have to look at the original
(original) Haydar Abadi had explicitly ordered the Iraqi forces not to advance beyond the town
Now this one actually makes sense, because by town they refer to altun kupri, and to not advance beyond it means that they controlled/was going to control it and that they were interested only in the Kirkuk province.
(R3YBOl's version) Haider Abadi had explicitly ordered the Iraqi forces not to advance beyond the City.
Now this version doesn't Make sense because he says "erbil counts as a city" so he thought that the word "town" referred to the city of Erbil. Now let me explain on why this version will never make sense.
1 it implies that Iraq controlled/was going to control erbil
2 Iraq was only interested in the Kirkuk province
3 iraqs pmf was never going to step foot in the city of Erbil even if they wanted
This is a classic case of pov pushing and it exaggerates iraqi pmf with no source to back it whatsoever
6. Abuse of Deletion and SPI Processes
The user has requested deletion of articles such as “Battle of Pirde,” labeling sources like K24 and Rudaw as unreliable, while ignoring counterarguments supported by other reputable sources:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_Pirde
The user is frequently involved in SPI cases against Kurdish editors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mir_kurdish16
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tishreen07/Archive
7. Original Research in Sandbox
The user's sandbox contains unsourced historical claims:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:R3YBOl/sandbox2
8. Making Unsupported Assumptions and Creating Unnecessary Drama
The user has made unsupported assumptions, such as claiming a user named “bins1000” was a sockpuppet without sufficient evidence. For example:
The user has also made unfounded claims about others’ remarks being offensive to entire ethnic groups, sometimes without involvement in the conversations:
Additionally, the user has accused others of personal attacks in situations where such claims were dismissed by administrators:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adawiyya#c-R3YBOl-20250721154600-Ilamxan-20250721145500
9. POV Pushing in Persian Wikipedia
The user has edited three separate articles on Persian Wikipedia, frequently returning to edit the “Battle of Sulaymaniyah (1991)” article (currently edited seven times). The user has engaged in POV pushing by deleting reliable sources such as the BBC and inserting claims of “Iraqi victory” where the source itself points to Kurdish control of northern Iraq.
For example, the user removed a BBC source from the article:
And later added claims of Iraqi victory:
10. Involvement in Edit Wars
The user has been involved in multiple edit wars, repeatedly reverting changes made by other editors, which disrupts consensus building and collaborative editing. This behavior undermines the cooperative spirit expected within Wikimedia projects. And many of these disputes involve Kurdish-related topics, especially kurdish battles in Iraq.
Here are some examples:
Request
Given the above behavior including use of racial slurs, misrepresentation, source manipulation, harassment through SPI, and persistent biased editing, I request that User:R3YBOl be globally banned from Wikimedia projects to protect the integrity and neutrality of content and community interactions. Average kurd (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)}}
Votes
Support
I support, he has also POV pushed on the Leo III the Isaurian page, he removed anything Assyrian-related to the page with the excuse of it being added by an “IP editor” while at the same time re-adding anything unrelated to the Assyrians that he accidentally removed in the process, despite it also being added by the same IP editor. He clearly has an anti-Assyrian agenda, and he didn’t even care to provide a summary but just deleted it all. He even removed Leo’s native tongue being Syriac and only kept Arabic, despite Syriac being added by an actual logged-in user.
Oppose
Oppose A situation that could get resolved by an account lock. Global ban is used as a last resort and currently this user doesn't satisfy the criteria per global ban policy.--A09|(pogovor) 21:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- should i request an account lock instead? Because i want him to be sanctioned for his actions Average kurd (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can list them but keep in mind locks, blocks and bans are means of prevention, not punishing. A09|(pogovor) 21:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- That has always been my intention, not to punish him but to prevent his current pattern Average kurd (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- You can list them but keep in mind locks, blocks and bans are means of prevention, not punishing. A09|(pogovor) 21:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- should i request an account lock instead? Because i want him to be sanctioned for his actions Average kurd (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- (Edit conflict.) I do recognise that this user's behaviour is not ideal, but global bans require the recipient to be blocked on at least two wikis. This user, as of now, is only blocked on arwiki and therefore it should be closed as invalid. //shb (t • c) 21:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- There should still be some sanctions Average kurd (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is not on Meta/global community to decide, but local ones instead. I believe both arwiki and enwiki have proper processes implemented to prevent such (if any, didn't check more specifically) disruptive editing. Furthermore, blocks are means of prevention, not punishing. A09|(pogovor) 21:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- his behavior is a pattern, he targets kurdish pages specifically about the Iraqi-kurdish conflicts and sometimes about assyrians. He will continue to do what he is doing in the future, if he faces a sanction his behavior will stop. I've spent nearly 2 months researching his behavior, I'm saying this for a fact that he will repeat his current behavior. Average kurd (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, again, if English Wikipedia would like to prevent such behaviour it's on their community to do so. Nothing Meta community can do in this case. A09|(pogovor) 21:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Its not just in English Wikipedia, in parsi too. I'm kind of blocked from English Wikipedia for something i regret otherwise i would have reported him there. I'm trying for a standard offer. Average kurd (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, again, if English Wikipedia would like to prevent such behaviour it's on their community to do so. Nothing Meta community can do in this case. A09|(pogovor) 21:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- his behavior is a pattern, he targets kurdish pages specifically about the Iraqi-kurdish conflicts and sometimes about assyrians. He will continue to do what he is doing in the future, if he faces a sanction his behavior will stop. I've spent nearly 2 months researching his behavior, I'm saying this for a fact that he will repeat his current behavior. Average kurd (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- This is not on Meta/global community to decide, but local ones instead. I believe both arwiki and enwiki have proper processes implemented to prevent such (if any, didn't check more specifically) disruptive editing. Furthermore, blocks are means of prevention, not punishing. A09|(pogovor) 21:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- There should still be some sanctions Average kurd (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)