Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Low

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TBH (talk | contribs) at 16:37, 15 November 2005 (November 2005: kurt angle). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RU Low

November 2005

I am not a vandal and you know it. Remington and the Rattlesnakes 03:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jayjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RfC procedures state: "All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Jayjg engages in a revert war on an RfC against me (one that he certified/endorsed), reinserting threaded comments in direct violation of RfC procedures. 19:40, 2 November 2005 17:55, 3 November 2005 14:59, 3 November 2005. As it happens, that last edit shows Jayjg removing my endorsement of an outside comment to the talk page. This qualifies as vandalism.. Now, Jayjg claims on my talk page that he thought my post was just another threaded comment. If it was, then it is interesting that the other two times he reverted me, he reinserted threaded comments to the article against RfC procedures. [1] [2]. But the one and only time he removes what he says he thought was a "threaded comment" was when it was my comment. And my comment also happens to be an endorsement of an outside comment by Vizcarra, and messing with someone's vote qualifies as vandalism. Note the endorsement he removed starts with an objection to a point I don't agree with, and ends with "I endorse your statement otherwise". That Jayjg is an admin and a member of the arbitration committee means that ignorance is no excuse. He knows policy. He knew exactly what he was doing. What will be interesting will be whether the fact that he is an admin and a member of arbcom has any bearing on whether policy is enforced neutrally, fairly, and evenly here, or whether who you are somehow affects judgment on what you do. He engaged in an edit war, disrupted RfC procedures, and vandalized my vote/endorsement of an outside comment. For a complete description of everything that happened, see this. FuelWagon 04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
October 2005

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral --Irpen 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's reported at administrators' noticeboard, why did you need to report it here? Also, why did you not follow the procedure at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005-10-31 22:52:54 (talkcontribs)