That would be perfectly in line with their past behavior.

Already 60% of the goal reached, with 28 days to go. 😩

We don’t know one way or another. Even if it misleads some people, that needs to be called out. The clearly defined criteria are displayed to many of those who join, yet they’re being put aside to essentially make up evidence and then turn to the really questionable definition of what is Russian that would also cover the likes of Telegram (reportedly used by 75% of Ukrainians), Google and so on, as rightly noted by someone in the group comments. They could have gone with that definition from the start, not baited and switched.

They aren’t calling for people to mount heads on spikes or review bomb, as far as I can tell.

In the context of the article, it’s not about the consequence - obviously, nobody’s getting burned at the stake - but about the how: the finger-pointing based on vibes or accusations of something done by another person.

On the one hand, I don’t want to tell Ukrainian folks how to spend their money with respect to Russia.

In that case, just look at how the Ukrainian users of the group are reacting. The number of users to have voiced their disagreement already exceeds that of the admins.

Though I never would have thought to do this in my community, I don’t think it’s unacceptable to ban people over voting behaviors if there is good evidence of brigading or persistence, however, using that specific rule to justify it is a bit of a stretch. It would help to see Beaver’s explanation and what the rest of the moderators make of the events.