Vandalism etc report against User:Signalhead

I'm not sure why it was incorretly made but I reproduce it here as requested.

I wish to make an allegation of persistent Vandalism against the owner of the account ‘Signalhead’ for repeated vandalism of articles, to which: deletion of material edited into those articles which Signalhead disagrees with their being there, such contributions being legitimate edits and not vandalism in themselves (other than Signalhead unilaterally deciding that he doesn't want them there).

The articles in question are on a railway subject matter and it is clear that Signalhead has unilleterally appointed himself as an ‘expert’ who has decided to ‘own’ the articles and persistently arbitrates on what material may or may not be edited into the article.  I refer in particular to three articles, 'Home Signal'; ‘Token (Railway Signalling)’ and ‘Signal Passed at Danger’ (And I must thank Signalhead himself for providing the evidence of that last article where he tried to use a claimed erroneous edit as evidence of a false claim of sockpupetry – it has become clear that another contributor (or even contributors) feel the same way I do).

Whenever edits are made to those articles, Signalhead has often just deleted (vandalism:blanking) the edit claiming the information is just wrong or ‘erroneous’ without permitting any discussion on the point.  Further the blanking takes place anything from a few minutes to a few hours which clearly demonstrates that Signalhead is watching the articles to make sure that no ‘unsuitable’ material is placed there and to ensure that he can delete any material which he believes is incorrect.  This demonstrates an arrogant ‘know it all’ attitude to other Wikipedia contributors and is, against the principles on which Wikipedia is based.  This unacceptable behaviour brings wikipedia into disrepute by discouraging legitimate contributors from actually contributing to the content of articles.

For my own part, I specifically refer to Signalhead’s blanking of an edit at 16:44 on the 15th September to article ‘Token (railway signalling)’, with an edit summary of ‘Removed Erroneous comments …’ because he thinks he knows better (vandalised within 4 hours).  Signalhead also vandalised the article ‘Home Signal’ at 11:42 27th October 2007 when he blanked an edit from another contributor in the article with the familiar ‘Reverted erroneous edit’ justification, within 3 hours of the contribution, again because he claimed to know better.  I reverted this blanking when I added an illustration that supported the blanked text.  However, Signalhead just vandalised the article again by blanking the edit at 17:07 on the 27th October 2007 with a ‘Reverted to earlier and better version’ justification, less than 2 hours after the restoration.  Signalhead did add something to the article discussion page, but regardless of that he had no right to just blank the contribution no matter how much of an authority he thinks he may be on the subject matter.  He should have discussed the matter first and then the article should have been adjusted by consensus.

I note that another contributor has also expressed exasperation with Signalhead's persistent blanking and adjudication of article content in a somewhat more unorthadox manner.

I offer the short times between contribution and blanking and the blanking itself as evidence that Signalhead is watching ‘his’ articles and deleting any ‘unsuitable’ (in his eyes) content.

With Signalhead’s apparent familiarity of finding his way around Wikipedia, I find it hard to believe that he is unaware of the rules.

I must therefore insist that Signalhead’s editing rights be permanently revoked for the following reasons.

1.TABPersistent blanking of other contributors edits which constitutes persistent vandalism.

2.TABArroganct contempt towards other Wikipedia contributors by adopting an attitude that he knows better than everyone else (which is a clear abuse of those contributors).  Even to the extent of making false allegations to detract from his own violation of the rules.

3.TABAdopting a self appointed role of deciding what can and can’t be contributed to articles which he has decided to ‘own’ and thus …

4.TABActing in a manner to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.