Talk:Requests for comment/Concerns Regarding Cross-Wiki Conduct and Tone by Administrator Bedivere

Discussion results and requests for closure of RfC

Hi, as I monitored this RfC that OperationSakura6144 opened a RfC against Bedivere for the Commons block I saw multiple admins think that the former is where the actual problem was: they pinged ReneeWrites multiple times (including personally, in the public village pump) before being blocked on Commons, and then try to edit Commons files by asking others in other wikis to help, which I mean, prohibited.

Although OperationSakura6144 opened this RfC saying that they are not to disrupt or circumvent my Commons block, but after that the user was reported to SRG in which the user made its final global edit saying it will stop making any further edits and contributions, which I saw this and made a speedy closure requests of this RfC, which was initially rejected.

However, there are two problems: the first one being OperationSakura6144's hurrying behavior to edit (or ask for editing) some files into SVG versions, which continued after the Commons block. The second one is to inappropriately ping other users (just like the previous example of Shāntián Tàiláng, which is more vigrous at pinging someone and the cross-wiki nature results in a global ban), and causing distress to anyone whose actions are against them.

As a long-term user mainly contributing on Commons and Meta, I only saw that this RfC was made against a Commons admin whose actions are justified to prevent further disrupting Commons and other projects. Another user, though, pointed out Bedivere's downsides in this comment but, still, Wikidata is Wikidata and different projects have different rules, so that comment cannot help either (see this thread and read those commented by admin Wüstenspringmaus to see that the user was making disruptive edits by creating non-notable people items on Wikidata and then uploading images on Commons to link them up).

And finally I have also noticed another RfC that will request to limit the request scope because of abuses of the RfC mechanism I saw this RfC as an abusive RfC, so after the discussions, the only outcome is to close this RfC per consensus as Stale. Sorry for making this long conclusion. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 10:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus to close this RfC as stale; in fact Requests for comment/Limit scope of RfC process is currently failing. If it were to pass then this RfC would be closed as invalid, but given it's not we have to deal with what the community apparently wants. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 15:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)