Re: Strange situation in Russian wiki 
I suppose that ru.wiki has policies to deal with user's miconduct and that Dart evader has been blocked accordingly. About the "anti-wikipedia campaign", all I can say - not knowing the details - is that criticism against wikipedia is welcome (and should be carefully read) when motivated and serious, and has to be ignored otherwise. Sorry that I could not help in time - yesterday I was off. --Paginazero 16:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: De-adminship because of violation of "administration ethics" 
It's hard to tell, when speaking without details. It depends how bad and how often these "ethic violations" happen. And, what exactly do you mean by "violation of administration ethics"? Is the admin abusing his/her functions to impose his/her own point of view in some articles?
We recently had a big discussion (for not calling it a flame) about the beahviour of an admin of it.wiki, who has been accused to have blocked too easily an anonymous IP and went into a small edit war with another user for tagging the article saved by that IP. It turned out that even though the community deprecated the single episode from which the discussion generated, most of the user nevertheless keep on according their trust to that admin.
If you think that an administrator is abusing his/her functions, the best way to act (IMHO) is bringing the case to attention of the community, openly and precisely. Different case is when the admin сошел с ума and begins to vandalize or block people without any logic and any right, but that would be an emergency.
Hope this helps... Bye. --Paginazero 16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- No, actually there is the action in ru-wiki Arbitration Committee against me.
- Plaintiffs collected many many "violations" of Wikipedia Rules, but I refuted all of their so-called "evidences".
- Then plaintiffs begins to press down on arbitrators that I as they thinks violate so-called "administration ethics". --Jaroslavleff 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear this. Everything depends on what actually the "carges" are. Anyway, I think the plaintiffs could use reading en:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and the pages linked from there. The only rules we must stick with are "the neutral point of view" and "not violate anyone's copyright", all the other rules must be based on common sense and aimed to make Wikipedia better and easier to everyone to access and partecipate. Счастливо. --Paginazero 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- So, finally, how do you think, may Arbitration Committee de-sysop an administrator if all claims to him are "violations" of unwritten "administration ethics", "spirit of Wikipedia" (?) and so on, but not violations of the Rules? --Jaroslavleff 18:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I cannot answer. Certainly evidence must be provided and the ArbCom must ask for it. An admin cannot be de-sysopped just because of lack of "sympathy" with the other users. --Paginazero 18:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Jaroslavleff 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That would really depend on the precise circumstances of what happened. I do not know enough about it to give an opinion. Danny 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: What must admin do with disputed photo? 
I read: Файл фотографии загрузил в Википедию Mithgol the Webmaster с согласия администрации комплекса «Олимп»..
A written evidence of that authorization must be given (and forwarded to email@example.com for filing). Without a written authorization, in doubt, I'd delete the picture. Hope this helps. Bye, --Paginazero 11:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)