Jump to content

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zondor (talk | contribs) at 17:53, 13 November 2005 (first post). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

RU Moderate

Now you are the one who is dragging in content disputes. My vandalism complaint has nothing to do with the content of the edits - that is reserved for the talk page of the relevant article. But it is vandalism when an editor (and an admin, to boot, who should subscribe to higher standards) reverses a whole set of edits because he disagrees with one element of it. This is a common practice from Geni, and I'll continue to report it as vandalism, because it is. --Leifern 15:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-- Account seems to have been created for the sole and express purpose of adding external links to the Columbia Encyclopedia. --Craig (t|c) 17:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1 week block.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His/her focus seems to be the following articles, which is not surprising since the spamvertised Web sites are all porn sites:
Please note that the reversions on the female ejaculation and pornography articles could look like an edit war, but it's simply not, especially when this user's "contributions" are taken into account. In the case of the female ejaculation article, the legitimate link that he/she keeps removing is clearly not spam; in fact, the description of it as "adult spam" doesn't even make sense. As I say, this person is just removing links in retaliation for having his/her spam reverted.
Thanks.
--Craig (t|c) 06:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't report content disputes here. This is only for vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Lots of vandalism. Blocked indefinitely. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like he's working in good faith, but doesn't quite understand policies and consensus. There is currently an RFC going on about this user, which will decide how to handle him or bring it up to a higher process. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]