Requests for comment/Coordinated admin actions and abuse on ru.wikipedia (Sep 2025)
The following request for comments is closed. Does not meet the policy requirements. m:Requests for comment/Policy Leaderboard (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
This Request for Comment concerns coordinated actions by several administrators and users on the Russian Wikipedia (ru.wikipedia) in September 2025. The actions included:
- Duplicate blocks of the same IP address by different administrators.
- Closure of a content discussion without consensus.
- Proposal and execution of a range block without presenting evidence.
- Use of unsubstantiated accusations.
- Removal of content without explanation.
Background
Between 14–15 September 2025, four participants acted in a coordinated manner:
- Pessimist2006 — closed a discussion without consensus; proposed a range block; pinged another admin to execute it.
- Nikolay Omonov — made accusations without diffs; appealed to past blocks; removed content without explanation; refused to seek consensus.
- Leokand — applied the first block to IP 92.55.171.116 (1 day, "3RR").
- El‑chupanebrej — applied a second block to the same IP; issued a closing statement justifying the duplication; applied a /20 range block for 3 months.
Evidence
Full timeline and archived diffs are provided in:
- Appendix 1 — First wave archive (Table 1: duplicate blocks and closing statement; Table 2: Pessimist’s actions and final /20 block).
- Appendix 2 — Six episodes of rhetorical provocation and procedural abuse by Nikolay Omonov.
All evidence is preserved via Wayback Machine snapshots to ensure verifiability.
Local attempts to resolve
- Raised the issue at ru:Википедия:Запросы к администраторам (diff).
- Attempted discussion on article and user talk pages — no resolution achieved.
- Local mechanisms failed to address the coordinated nature of the actions; further local engagement was blocked by technical restrictions due to sanctions.
Requests
- Review of the case by stewards or global sysops for potential cross‑wiki implications of administrator abuse.
- Recommendations or interventions to prevent similar coordinated abuse on ru.wikipedia.
- Public record of the incident on Meta for transparency and precedent.
Involved parties
- Pessimist2006
- Nikolay Omonov
- Leokand
- El‑chupanebrej
Notifications
As required by m:Requests for comment/Policy, attempts were made to notify the involved parties and the ru.wikipedia community.
Direct on‑wiki notifications were not possible due to a local block and page protections preventing edits to user talk pages and community boards by the filer.
This public statement in the RfC serves as notice to:
All parties are invited to respond here on Meta: m:Requests for comment/Coordinated admin actions and abuse on ru.wikipedia (Sep 2025)
For record‑keeping, this notification is also archived on the filer’s talk page: m:User talk:~2025-62993-6
--~2025-62993-6 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
--~2025-62993-6 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appendix 1 — First wave archive
| Date | Event | Diff (ru.wikipedia) | Archived copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Sep 2025 | Duplicate block of IP 92.55.171.116 by Leokand (1 day, "3RR") | [1] | [2] |
| 14 Sep 2025 | Duplicate block of same IP by El‑chupanebrei | [3] | [4] |
| 14 Sep 2025 | Closing statement justifying duplication | [5] | [6] |
| 15 Sep 2025 | Pessimist proposes /20 range block and pings admin | [7] | [8] |
| 15 Sep 2025 | El‑chupanebrei applies /20 range block for 3 months | [9] | [10] |
Appendix 2 — Rhetorical provocation and procedural abuse by Nikolay Omonov
| Date | Episode | Diff (ru.wikipedia) | Archived copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 Sep 2025 | Accusation without diffs | [11] | [12] |
| 14 Sep 2025 | Appeal to past blocks without evidence | [13] | [14] |
| 14 Sep 2025 | Removal of content without explanation | [15] | [16] |
| 14 Sep 2025 | Refusal to seek consensus | [17] | [18] |
| 15 Sep 2025 | Additional rhetorical provocation | [19] | [20] |
| 15 Sep 2025 | Procedural abuse in discussion closure | [21] | [22] |
Coordinated admin actions and abuse on ru.wikipedia (Sep 2025)
This request for comment addresses a sequence of administrative actions on ru.wikipedia and their compliance with local and global policies. For context, see Timeline section for sequence of involvement by the same parties across projects.
The real situation
The anonymous user's claims are not true. The anonymous user added incoherent text generated by a neural network to the article. The text, among other things, contained support for anti-Semitic accusations against the Talmud. After the text was removed, the anonymous user engaged in a war of edits. They also posted text generated by a neural network on the discussion page. This request is likely to have been generated by a neural network. The request contains false accusations against several users, which violates the rules.
— Nikolay Omonov
- Comment by filer: The above reply does not address the documented administrative actions in this RfC. It focuses on discrediting the filer and introducing unrelated accusations, without disputing the diffs and logs presented in Appendix 1. Participants are encouraged to focus on the procedural issues under review. —~2025-62993-6 (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed analysis of reply from User:Nikolay Omonov
Instead, it employs several rhetorical moves that divert attention from the documented facts:
- **Shift to personal attack** – The filer is described as an “anonymous user” producing “neural network” text, which frames the filer as inherently unreliable without addressing the evidence.
- **Introduction of unrelated, highly charged claims** – References to anti‑Semitism and “incoherent text” are not part of the RfC scope and risk prejudicing discussion rather than clarifying facts.
- **No challenge to the factual record** – The reply does not dispute the diffs, logs, or the sequence of administrative actions documented in Appendix 1.
- **Procedural avoidance** – By focusing on the filer’s alleged behaviour in article space, the reply sidesteps the question of whether the administrative actions themselves complied with ru.wikipedia policy and Wikimedia global standards.
For clarity, participants are encouraged to:
- Review the documented events in the appendices.
- Assess whether the administrative actions met local and global procedural requirements.
- Separate evaluation of content disputes from evaluation of administrative conduct.
—~2025-62993-6 (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad RfC: OP does not meet the account requirements for filing an RfC. --Leonidlednev (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above remark reflects a personal opinion and does not constitute a formal closure under m:Requests for comment/Policy. The policy requires that the filer have a registered account on any Wikimedia project; there is no explicit requirement for Meta autoconfirmation in order for an RfC to remain open once filed. This RfC concerns global procedural issues, has already received participation, and therefore meets the spirit of the policy. —~2025-62993-6 (talk) 07:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline
| Date/Time (UTC) | Event | Involved party | Action/Comment | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025‑09‑14 | Content dispute and provocation on ru.wikipedia | Nikolay Omonov | Initiated edits and talk page comments leading to escalation | diff |
| 2025‑09‑14 | First block applied on ru.wikipedia | Leokand | Issued initial block against filer | archive |
| 2025‑09‑17 | RfC filed on Meta | — | — | Requests for comment/Coordinated admin actions and abuse on ru.wikipedia (Sep 2025) |
| 2025‑09‑17 | First reply in RfC (*The real situation*) | Nikolay Omonov | Posted statement attacking filer’s credibility, introducing unrelated accusations | diff |
| 2025‑09‑17 | Second reply in RfC (*Bad RfC*) | Leonidlednev | Claimed RfC invalid due to account requirements | diff |
Procedural implications
The following ru.wikipedia policies and guidelines may be inconsistent with the documented actions and replies (see Timeline and the thread at Обсуждение:Талмуд):
- ВП:НТЗ — Neutral point of view
- Use of highly charged framing (e.g., anti‑Semitism assertions) in dispute context may bias evaluation of sources and content instead of neutrally addressing article material.
- ВП:ВЕР — Verifiability
- Claims about text and other assertions were presented without on‑wiki citations to reliable sources; content removal and subsequent arguments did not consistently reference verifiable sourcing.
- ВП:ВЕС — Due weight
- Attempts to foreground fringe or charged angles in talk‑page dispute give undue prominence not proportionate to mainstream sources on the topic.
- ВП:НО — No original research
- Accusatory interpretations about the filer’s intent and text origin constitute original synthesis rather than source‑based discussion of article content.
- ВП:ЭП — Etiquette
- Personalizing the dispute shifts from content and procedure to user‑focused remarks.
- ВП:НПК — No personal commentary
- Discussion targets the filer’s presumed motives and credibility instead of the substance of edits and administrative steps.
- ВП:ПДН — Assume good faith
- Presumption of malicious fabrication without prior clarification or on‑wiki verification escalates the conflict.
- ВП:КОНС — Consensus
- Failure to engage with presented diffs and logs and to address procedural questions undermines consensus‑building.
- ВП:НЕТРИБУНА — Not a soapbox
- Use of the talk space to level unrelated or charged accusations not aimed at improving article content or resolving procedure.
- ВП:БЛОК — Blocking policy
- Application of blocks in a dispute where the administrator is substantively involved raises questions of impartiality and adherence to block use criteria.
Evidence: see the RfC diffs of initial replies on Meta (Omonov — diff; Leonidlednev — diff), ru.wikipedia article diff (diff), and the discussion thread at Обсуждение:Талмуд.