Requests for comment/Admin behavior on ruwiki

The following request for comments is closed. From the recent actions of the initiator of this topic, in particular abusing multiple accounts and creation of trolling RfC, it can be concluded that such topics are created for the purpose of harassing users and trolling. Also, taking into account the false statements of the initiator and comments of various users here, it can be concluded that there are no declared by the initiator abuses in RuWiki. --Mykola 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I am banned from Russian Wikipedia for using the word "chauvanist" to describe certain nationalist users who claimed that Yaliboylu subethnic group wasn't real and that the Mubarek zone was a hoax to make Moscow look bad (nevermind that not a single reliable source makes claims THAT absurd), I haven't ceased keeping an eye on my watchlist and continuing my usual Wikipedia recruiting efforts. Over the course of the past few weeks I've become aware of some rather concerning behavior from more than one admin on Russian Wikipedia. Just a few examples of unethical and sketchy things going on:

I humbly suggest that more accountability for administrators start taking place.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion Edit

2. Continuing to attempt to circumvent the indefinite block will only result in a global lock RfC in the end. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Indefinite blocks exist for a reason. If you are blocked for violating the rules - you are not allowed to evade the block, independent of how good your contributions are. That is why these edits get reverted. SummerKrut (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Q-bit array is a conscientious administrator, acting within the consensus that contributions from indefinitely blocked editors are unacceptable. Pessimist (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Edits of indef.blocked sock-puppet users are unacceptable in Ru-Wiki. If some of their edits are useful, such edits can be and must be redone by trusted users. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that situation with uploads of blocked users is inconsequent. But there are technical limitations for autocancellation of such edits. Alex Spade (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "User:Sealle, who remains an administrator" - he doesn't, and hasn't made any edits since 2020, as can be seen on his user:contributions page. Кирилл С1 (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sealle is not sysop since Feb 15 2021. Alex Spade (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is the problem, exactly? Your conclusions from your own head in no way prove the guilt of the administrators. And all the links you cited only confirm that the administrators are right. Megitsune-chan (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Megitsune-chan:, just a note: this is the origin of this RFC, with the same repeated personal attacks and factual inaccuracies from the topic starter. SummerKrut (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • У топикстартера есть две бессрочные блокировки: в en-wiki и в ru-wiki. Емнип, этого достаточно для поднятия вопроса о глобальной бессрочной блокировке во всех проектах. А глобальная блокировка явно уже нужна, ибо от этого обсуждения пользы не видно. --Jim Hokins (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Реплика топикстартера говорит много о нём, и ничего - против действий тех администраторов, которые вызвали недовольство. Глобальный бан представляется вполне уместным. -- 14:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would also support the global ban for topic starter. These endless baseless accusations are annoying and disruptive. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is NOT a rule to revert edits solely because they are by a blocked user. Reverting edits out of spite to the point of removing copyright and publication information is disgustion, disruptive, and against the rules.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]