User:Rursus/vandalism and disruption

Funny fools

 * "Cygnus Go BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 * "crappy irrevelavent star"
 * a promisingly revealing section
 * "Yeah Ball" times 2 and "The Letter "J""
 * Pizza can also help you.
 * For some reason flame retardants gets an extra attention from vandals (not having a real life obviously)

A very hot fight over something very very small

 * (no summary)
 * "Revert"
 * "rvv"
 * Undid revision 387137435 by X (talk) Do you not like uppercase? From your contributions, I can tell you're smart; you have no excuse not to provide a proper Edit Summary!)
 * read Manual of Style, and some English textbooks, ass
 * "Revert"
 * "Undid"
 * "Revert"

Guess what's the problem? '-' vs '–'! (Imagine User:Rursus snickering evilly here!)

The most disruptive editor in the entire history of Wikipedia

 * tracks of disruption
 * WP:RFC/Jagged 85 (first warning)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85/Archive
 * WP:RFC/Jagged 85/Evidence
 * Some derogatory/inflammable comments about his detractors and repeated denials of any wrongdoing
 * WP:RFC/Jagged 85/Computer Games Evidence
 * WP:AN/I: JAGGED 85 BANNED
 * User:Jagged 85 with block log
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup (en:WP only)
 * WP:RFC/Jagged 85#Global ban

What did he do that was wrong? In essence: he added false statements into articles based on articles that he didn't read, or didn't understand. He invented his own "truth" that he in rapid speed imposed onto Wikipedia without responding properly to objections. When confronted with criticism, he refused to admit anything wrong, instead calling the attackers "western ethnocentric" and alleging a conspiracy.

Conclusion: good editor ethics usually coincides with:
 * concentrate on articles where you are knowledgeable, it's not acceptable to translate a source with google-translate, and then guess the meaning, filling in the gaps with your own imagination,
 * don't rush, take it easy!
 * listen to criticism and respond to all of it,
 * don't run your own agenda, just run the agenda of encyclopedic knowledge,
 * discuss the contents, don't allege any motives of the other editors (flame baits).