Requests for comment/Global ban for 8xianYAKINIKU

The following request for comments is closed. Global ban criteria are not met: the creator of this request did not substantially motivate that the contributions of this user are not just spam or vandalism. This can be dealt with using global locks as well. --Daniuu (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening statement

8xianYAKINIKU is currently indefinitely blocked on eight projects, yet he continues to perform detrimental activities to Wikimedia projects. I hereby request that this user is globally banned. I will go over details as to why I think this measure is necessary.

8xianYAKINIKU's behaviour

Lock all • Global block all:
- 8xianYAKINIKU (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Pasienren (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Baxianjen (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- 八人山 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Ya8sen (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Patsian (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- Hachizen (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- 八仙樂園烤肉部 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- 八里最強燒肉 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- PahsienKR (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)
- 中山路三段112號 (talk • contribs • block • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date ^{(alt • mw)} • CA • gblock • ST • lwcheckuser)

Early activities

This user is indefinitely blocked from the Chinese Wikipedia following a unanimous decision in a block discussionon the basis of competency issues, abusive behavior, disruptive editing, harassment, religious proselytizing over many years. You can read the block discussion and the zhwiki block history of this editor for in depth details. I can confirm that such behavior that lead to the indefinite block there has spread cross-wiki.

Further blocks on other projects

commonswiki

Indefinitely blocked for inventing terms, and upload nomination pictures, but he used other accounts to upload same nomination pictures. See also previous blocks.

cebwiki

Indefinitely blocked for vandalisming other articles.

enwiki

First, he was blocked for 2 days. Finally, the administrator changes the block duration to indef because the account's block reason is "clearly not here to build an encyclopedia."

jawiki

After the account was blocked in enwiki, he was starting cross-wiki abuse in jawiki, you can see his block log in jawiki.

wikidata

Per block log.

zhwikisource and zhwikiversity

The block reason is Vandalism. See wikiversity:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/49420 and wikisource:zh:Special:Redirect/logid/1211162 .

List of sockpuppets

w:zh:User:Matt_Zhuang/八仙樂園LTA

Formalities

Criteria confirmation

The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam.
Not vandalism: Yes

Nor spam: Yes
The user has been carefully informed about appropriate participation in the projects and has had fair opportunity to rectify any problems.
Warnings from admins: Countless

Time given to change: Several days
The user is indefinitely blocked or banned on two or more projects.
See above

Requirements

Required steps
- Confirm that the user satisfies all criteria for global bans: Confirmed
- File a new request for comment on Meta: Filed
- Inform the user about the discussion on all wikis where they are active: Yes by MilkyDefer
- Inform the community on all wikis where the user has edited: Yes by MilkyDefer

Nominator requirements: All passed See my CentralAuth.
- have a Wikimedia account
- be registered for more than six months before making the request
- have at least 500 edits globally (on all Wikimedia wikis)

Statements by other users

Please create new h3 sections below this line.

Response from 8xianYAKINIKU

Comments

Support

Weak support I always vote support to global ban request, however, this one seemed not prove why The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam, this looks like a vandalism only case. Lemonaka (talk) 09:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonaka:The user always rollbacked my edits, so I have to request global ban. Peterxy（talk） 13:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterxy12 This is also just a kind of vandalism, revert back them and request global lock will be better. Lemonaka (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I would have opposed this if sockpuppetry wasn't involved, but sockpuppetry seems extensive. Faster than Thunder (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. The user in question is limited to vandalism and mere sockpuppeting and does not meet the common criteria for the absolute last-resort of global ban. The proposer of this RfC himself is blocked for abuse and harrassment. The time given to change is "several days" which is obviously too short. Milky Defer 20:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~反對，意見同上。中山路三段112號 (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
The above one is a vote from LTALemonaka (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per MilkyDefer, a lock is enough at this moment. aqurs 🍧 23:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This user fails the first criteria listed at Global bans § Criteria for global bans: "The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki abuse that is not merely vandalism or spam" (emphasis mine). As far as I can see, the only issues with this user are vandalism and sockpuppetry, both of which can be handled using global locks. //shb (t • c) 12:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the user is targeting Peterxy12 specifically, so "The user demonstrates an ongoing pattern of cross-wiki that is not merely vandalism or spam." This pattern is more than obvious vandalism. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Lemonaka's comment above. //shb (t • c) 00:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Faster than Thunder (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above this does not meet the criteria for a global ban. GothicGolem29 (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I think a lock would do. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But he maybe create some accounts to vandal if these accounts have been locked. Peterxy（talk） 14:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lock those, too. Another Wiki User the 3rd (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Global lock all of his sockpuppets first.Matt Zhuang (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Another Wiki User the 3rd above. Don't see a difference between global lock/ban. Lock all accounts/socks should be sufficient. For future just submit found accounts to SRG for locking. -- $\int$ （☎） 00:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per above --Plutus^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 01:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Global lock is already enough. Sakurase (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A global lock is enough. Unless there is strong off-wiki evidence provided, I may not push the vote to Support. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Global lock is enough for now.--S8321414 (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions