From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Persistent disruptive editing – An anonymous editor first used the undo button many times to revert many edits by many editors over and over, ignoring multiple warnings from an administrator until finally relenting.

Next the anonymous editor filed a Dispute resolution claim that was closed because "failure by one of the editors to address reasonable questions" as well as the recommendation to "advise the other parties that disruptive editing can be reported at WP:ANEW or WP:ANI, and that disruptive editing by unregistered editors is best dealt by requesting semi-protection" after an moderator asked for assistance, "Would another moderator please take a look at the case regarding the Foundation for Economic Education because quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen, and I have no idea what to do with it."

The second moderator who advised the first moderator strongly cautioned the anonymous editor to stop the disruptive behavior and advised me to "just ignore unconstructive talk page comments" which I followed. The anonymous editor decided that the lack of replies to their disruptive talk page comments somehow gave them consensus to edit as they saw fit. I contacted the moderator again and that moderator recommended that I "Resume discussion on the article talk page."

This is all on top of perpetually issuing completely bogus warnings to anyone who disagrees with the anonymous editor's actions.

The anonymous editor then graduated to blatant vandalism.

At 18:35 used for vandalism, then minutes later at 22:04 used ‎ for more vandalism.

Anonymous editor has probably used,,,,,,,,,,,, and often in rapid succession.

pending changes = Lectonar (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The anonymous user routinely makes edits that violate both grammar and Wikipedia policy. While that happens all the time and so is to be expected, rather than learn from the mistake, this user tells anyone that corrects the mistake that they must accept the flawed editing and abuses warnings over and over again. The most prominent technique used is to label any correction as a personal attack. I do not think the behavior is malicious, however, the user shows a persistent desire to ignore all language and Wikipedia rules and to attack people who simply mention those rules. The pending changes setting did nothing to change any of that behavior. The dispute resolution process also did nothing.