Forum:N00b question

Hello! I haven't added any material to RW at all yet, but I reverted some changes by other users for the first time today, which led to some questions... So this one user in particular, has made a lot of questionable edits over months, some of which seem to have gone undetected. At first I thought I could doublecheck his edits and revert the ones that seemed inappropriate, but it turned into a way bigger job than I originally thought it would be. Someone with the same username has had a lot of disciplinary actions and bannings over at en.wikipedia.org for sockpuppetry and disruptive editing, in particular for articles related to Christianity. Several of the notices about temporary bannings and sockpuppet investigations were deleted from the user's talkpage, but you can see them in the history. There's a lot of overlap between the articles edited on WP and RW. What does one do about that sort of behavior over at RW? (Sorry if this wasn't the right place to ask.) LaughTherapy (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want this person banned or otherwise punished, we are going to need a record or even just a couple of edits that show the user has been engaging in bannable behavior. Could you please do me the brief favor of linking to a few edits you feel are infractions on this editor's part? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Although banning is an option, we generally try to discuss it first. The edits you reverted weren't either horrific or awesome. That doesn't mean you're wrong to revert them. If this person makes bad contributions frequently, they'll get reverted frequently. There's nothing wrong here about poor quality. That's what multiple people can collectively correct. If a person behaves disruptively, that's another matter. Sock puppets? Not a problem here unless they're used to evade bans or otherwise cause mischief. Then it's the mischief that's the problem, not the socks. MarmotHead (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Bruce Grubb? 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, FYI to and  too, I just posted a partial explanation about this on Talk:Quackwatch. There are other articles he edited that I assume I'll find problems with, but I haven't had a chance to parse through them yet. Off the top of my head, other articles that might be of concern are: Jesus myth theory, Josephus, Food and Drug Administration and Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ, to name a few. LaughTherapy (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)