Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive892

I am opening this thread to seek guidance on how to handle the increasingly un-

• "You refuse to discuss and egg on our colleagues to refuse to discuss...I think you think you know better than our pillars." (No examples of my alleged refusal to discuss, or egging on of other editors are given. I find the accusation of refusing to discuss odd given the dozens of talk page edits I've made on the article in question) [24]

• "It is quite telling to me that you comment on an article talk page in an attempt to stave off productive talk page discussion." [25]

• "We are still struggling on this talk page against your stubborn insistence, in the face of ample patient explications of policy, that you be allowed to serve as gate-keeper for what reliable sources have to say about the subject of this article. Please stop using consensus as your cudgel, it is long overdue for you to embrace our neutrality pillar." [26]

• "I agree this edit is a good representative of the attempted whitewash by a small group of editors, generously, deficient in their understanding of our neutrality pillar, less generously, pointed...Where is the discussion, oh brave consensus champion? Fully understanding his preference is not supported by policy, this editor hid behind bold, deleting content and references without discussion, flying under the banner of consensus but declining to walk the walk." [27]

• "In arguing against an editor instead of content, my colleague demonstrates an embarrassing lack of self-awareness of the paucity of his position...a small group of editors decided an incomplete article is preferred to a good article, and an entirely uninteresting attempt by a local consensus to triumph over our neutrality pillar, aimed at excluding neutral content and reliable sources deemed unflattering, a sad, completely avoidable debate, and absolutely nothing our encyclopedia has not seen over and over, as less experienced editors struggle with a full comprehension of due weight as relative to reliable sources. Please join us in the editor education effort, as uninteresting as it is, it is the heavy lifting of collaborative writing. " [28]

• "Any competent editor would anticipate some of these edits might be considered controversial." [29]

• "Are you pretending you do not understand NPOV, or are you pretending RS does not say what it says?" [30]

• "This comment very clearly demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of our pillar of neutrality. This is a rookie misconception of
  WP:DUE advanced by pointy editors." [31]

• "You have taken your first, small step to understanding NPOV!" [32]

• "I'm sorry I perceive your editorial collaboration as cowardly in that I thought mistakenly that you support undiscussed section blanking whilst preaching the gospel of consensus, I see now that this perception could not be more wrong." [33]

• "It is cowardly. It is getting your way while avoiding the heavy lifting of collaborating within policy and guideline. Own it." [34]

• "Mr. Courageous Wrapped in the Flag of Consensus Hero." [35]

• "Of course any editor with a strong commitment to consensus would seek consensus on section blanking. It should be a simple matter to direct readers of this talk page to the talk page discussion of section blanking... because you are not hypocrites." [36]

I would like guidance on how to handle this user's increasingly hostile and unproductive comments. I want to ensure this user is

• Support boomerang on Champaign Supernova and DaltonCastle for deliberately targeting HughD and turning a content dispute into a behavioral dispute by misrepresenting the actual dispute under discussion, portraying HughD as the problem (when in fact the problem is biased editing by the above editors), and taking Hugh's quotes from talk pages out of context to misrepresent his position and attitude. The above editors seem to be working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles. This is a violation of basic policies regarding content, and their railroading of HughD is an attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you mind providing diffs of me engaging in "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles"? There have undoubtedly been a number of content disputes on the article's talk page, but perhaps you are mistaking me with another editor(s)? Earlier today I made this edit to the talk page [37] "This article has ebbed and flowed between 'washes,' both black and white. Obviously this article should include some discussion of the Kochs. However, the current article serves as a

WP:DUE. There must be a middle ground..." Champaign Supernova (talk

) 04:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And speaking of boomerangs, Viriditas, maybe don't call other editors "trolls"? [38] Your entirely unprovoked rage-spiral at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour looks a lot like Wikipedia:WikiBullying to me. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ive made zero changes on the page since I was told to avoid edit-warring. I havent edited it in weeks. I have only noticed the changes made by Hugh. Viriditas is rather new to the page. I can assure you that Hugh was not improving the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

After all the chest thumping and bluster, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff showing a problem with HughD that requires admin intervention. Instead, the diffs show HughD calling out other editors on their policy violations, quite the opposite of what you intended to portray. If this isn't a classic case for a boomerang, then I don't know what is. This is an attempt to silence the other side in a content dispute, and what we have here are trumped up charges with no basis in reality. Viriditas (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for jumping in, however, I feel that I have also been affected by HughD's actions in regards to the AFP talk page, as well as DaltonCastle and Champaign Supernova have been. I'm sure you are aware, Viriditas, of the simple distinction between "calling out other editors on their policy violations" and personally attacking them as being "rookies" and "cowards." There are polite and professional ways to discuss policy violations without offending users, and HughD has simply not been successful at this. Thank you. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the diffs showing my apparent "biased editing" and "working overtime to remove any reliable source mentions of the primary role the Koch brothers have in the above articles" that you accused me of. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Perhaps you missed the diffs I placed above?

DaltonCastle (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, neither of you can point to a single, solitary diff indicating a need for admin intervention. No matter how many times you spam the same diffs over and over again, you cannot expect reasonable people to be fooled by this transparent attempt to fling mud, hoping something will stick to Hugh. Again, no evidence of wrongdoing by HughD, but loads upon loads of evidence against his accusers, who appear to be violating in NPOV in articles about the role of the Koch brothers. You are clearly abusing the administrative reporting process to try and get your critics disciplined in the hopes that nobody will actually notice that you've misrepresented the evidence against HughD. Sorry to disappoint you, but there are still a few of us left who are aware of your shenanigans and know exactly what is going on here. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Reject this claim. I took a few weeks off, and I return to this article to find that HughD has unfortunately been baited into making some unfortunate personal remarks about two or three editors that have been sniping at him for quite some time. In my early interaction with HughD, before I took a slight absence from this project, I found him extremely polite (sometimes obsequiously so), and I believe any fallback from his previous often-unctuous persona was due entirely to the hammering he received from those opposed to his rather perceptive edits. There is just no reason for this editor to be raked over the coals as this "incident" is doing right now. I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary. (In other words, never use the word "you": On a Talk Page a good editor should just forget that the second-person singular exists.) Any administrator reading this might just wrap up the discussion with an admonition to all concerned to WP:Assume good faith and get on with improving the article. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent suggestion ("I believe that HughD's recent failings can be simply repaired by a vow that he will no longer engage in any kind of direct chit-chat with any other editor on the Talk Page of this article, or in the Edit Summary.") That is the type of remedy I'm looking for. Quite simply, I'm tired of being on the receiving end of condescending, snarky unconstructive comments, and I'm tired of being looped in with other editors with whom Hugh has a problem, and of being accused of things I had no part in, like "section blanking." Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable start. It would be helpful if

WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

22:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of making this incredibly long post readable, remotely. I have no comment on the matter at hand, just making it easier for admins and editors. DaltonCastle would be well reminded that excessive lists of diffs may not actually serve the purpose intended. Blackmane (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the jumble. I had hoped to get my points across but totally understand I failed to meet TLDR. I'll be better about this in the future. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a few of the supposed POV diffs and didn't see obvious problems (stuff seemed to be sourced and matter-of-factly written). I did notice a couple looked very similar to each other, i.e. at least one was a revert. No opinion at all about surrounding conduct allegations that I haven't tried at all to examine--it's late here. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, DaltonCastle's homework assignment today is to read

understood. I do apologize for that jumble. DaltonCastle (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute

There is a political faction on Wikipedia that wants to demonize the Koch brothers wherever possible, while we make no mention on our Rockefeller Foundation page of the Rockefeller Brothers bankrolling Obama's nuclear deal with Iran,[39] just to pick an obvious example.

Take a look at our pages for the top political donors listed by opensecrets.org, and see how many of them contain the kind of criticism that is being pushed into anything Koch-related:

 Top Organization Contributors

 RANK _____________ Name _________________________ Total _____ %Dem. _ %Rep.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------

 1 Service Employees International Union ----- $222,434,657 -- 99% --- 1%

 2 ActBlue ----------------------------------- $160,395,135 - 100% --- 0%

 3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees -- $93,830,657 --- 99% --- 1%

 4 National Education Assn ------------------- $92,972,656 --- 97% --- 4%

 5 Fahr LLC ---------------------------------- $75,289,659 -- 100% --- 0%

 6 American Federation of Teachers ----------- $69,757,113 -- 100% --- 1%

 7 Las Vegas Sands --------------------------- $69,440,942 ---- 0% - 100%

 8 National Assn of Realtors ----------------- $68,683,359 --- 49% -- 52%

 9 Carpenters & Joiners Union ---------------- $67,778,534 --- 94% --- 7%

 10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers --- $63,572,836 --- 99% --- 2%

 11 United Food & Commercial Workers Union --- $63,229,927 -- 100% --- 1%

 12 AT&T Inc --------------------------------- $61,004,110 --- 42% -- 58%

 13 Laborers Union --------------------------- $57,644,241 --- 94% --- 6%

 14 Perry Homes ------------------------------ $55,482,749 ---- 0% - 100%

 15 Goldman Sachs ---------------------------- $52,230,718 --- 54% -- 47%

 Source: [ https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php ]

It simply isn't very notable that billionaires spend millions of dollars supporting political causes that they like -- unless the billionaires' last name is Koch, then suddenly it becomes the most important fact about them.

BTW, if you are wondering where the Koch Brothers are on this list, At $28,572,742, they are Number 48.

Just to be complete, here are some figures for dark money:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2013/11/liberal-dark-money-dominating-2014-elections/

Wikipedia should give the same

This is a content dispute, and those involved should go to

While I am not up to speed on the issues listed above, this comment caught my eye - mainly because it seems to be totally and completely irrelevant. If this were AFD, I'd link

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other organizations/individuals give more money doesn't mean that the donations of the individuals in question are not relevant to their articles. Especially if there are proportionally more sources discussing their donations than the ones you list. I don't edit in this area much, but it seems to be that $28 Million is a pretty significant number, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did

14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There are content disputes on this article, but that's not why I opened this thread. I came here to seek help with negative user conduct directed toward me. I'm focused on the behavior issue. Does anyone have recommendations on how to handle that aspect? Thanks you. Champaign Supernova (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely this is a content dispute and shouldn't be at this board. Civility is not obsequious politeness. HughD has indeed been blocked once or twice but this noticeboard should be used if he returns to edit warring. I think he is way too snarky when calling out logical errors to make rapid progress in disputes, but I will settle for slower progress. But it is not reasonable to infer from the diffs in context that he has erred so far from civility as to be routinely making personal attacks (or other incivilities) and thus requiring administrator intervention. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a content dispute here; however, HughD has never accepted consensus except when it can be interpreted to agree with his POV. When it cannot be, he finds another noticeboard to seek "consensus". Few of his proposed edits are unrepresentative of the source, which is often reliable; but he includes only statements from a particular viewpoint, and adds more of them than are warranted. I cannot give a specific example of "cherry-picking" except his removal of third-party approval of "secrecy" of donor lists, but the entire funding and transparency sections are much too long with respect to the weight given in reliable sources. Even that would be a content dispute, except for the edit warring and his refusal to understand that his stated interpretation of guidelines can be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a single diff supporting any or all of your allegations. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My previous comment seems to have been misplaced. I do much of my editing on a smartphone, and cannot easily copy diffs into my text. However, I might be more easily convinced that Hugh is not being intentionally disruptive if someone could point out a single edit which could be considered "pro-Koch". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that would be interesting. He has posted here [40] that he views AFP as "a key player in the organized, corporate-funded suppression of unions in the US" and here [41] that "I would say AFP has done more to raise the avg temp of our planet than Watts ever will" [42] The attempts (here's another [43]) to convince members of

Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour to adopt the article seem like an attempt to recruit like-minded editors to edit the page in a certain way, AKA Wikipedia:Canvassing. Champaign Supernova (talk

) 01:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of context, those quotes look like canvassing. In context, they emerged in longer, more neutral, discussions, to increase awareness among editors interested in a topic. One sentence at the climate change task force talk page displays HughD's unfortunate tendency toward polemic in talk pages. Collaboration is always going to be difficult on articles about political 501(c)(4) organizations (Dark money), but I don't see a pattern, or an individual diff, from any of the 3 named editors (HughD, Champaign Supernova, Dalton Castle) that crosses any line that requires administrator involvement. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal interactions with Hugh are pretty limited, but I can say that between not assuming good faith and repeating the same canned, dismissive answers thinly veiled behind a facade of niceties, his behavior makes working out the content disputes we're discussing unnecessarily difficult. I do give Hugh credit for bringing in uninvolved editors to the page, however - even if I don't agree with them, their takes on the situation have been refreshing to hear from the perspective of someone not so entrenched and unwilling to have genuine discussion. Hugh is clearly a dedicated, highly motivated editor, who could probably benefit from taking a bit of a break from the topic. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

HughD's behavior

I was "pinged" about this discussion when it was first opened, and have given some thought to responding here in the intervening days, not least of which was due to HughD's seeming targeting of those who disagree with him. While HughD's behavior is based on a content dispute, it has led to inappropriate behavior by HughD. I'll try to keep it brief; while the length and breadth of HughD's behavior makes that difficult, I'll try to summarize below.

Here are the actions which HughD has directed at me:

On 6/15 this notice. The DS notice on the talkpage was put there by HughD, not an admin. This was done so that Hugh could then post the DS warnings on the talkpages of editors who were in disagreement with him. This is a course of action I've actually never seen attempted before.

On 6/18, he posted this incorrect notice, in violation of ANI requirements. The result of that ANI discussion was no action against me.

On 6/29, he posted this (unsigned). The result of that posting was no action against me.

Not satisfied with that result, HughD then posted this notice on 6/30, which again resulted in no action against me. However, while it was still on-going, Hugh posted this notice on 7/1.

During the last week or so of June, Hugh filed the following:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Onel5969 repeated removal of WikiProject talk page banner
2. a link to HughD's previous ANI report filing
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Onel5969 reported by User:HughD .28Result: Page restriction applied.29
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Koch Industries brief, in-text description in Americans for Prosperity

In addition, he has opened numerous discussions regarding his viewpoint on the article talkpage in the last two months (a very nice recap can be found Talk:Americans for Prosperity#NPOV issue HERE on the talkpage - the response by Champaigne Supernova. Every one of which consensus has been against, e.g. over inclusion of Koch Brothers, too much detail on funding, and most specifically, NPOV. Even after consensus has been reached on the NPOV issue, he then tagged the article for an NPOV issue. After consensus. I think Hugh confuses consensus with unanimity.

His disruptive behavior goes back to at least 2012, when this occurred:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive195#User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued) 09/12 - where he vowed to "never edit war again"

I didn't do a search on the intervening years. But in the last 3 months, he's been involved in numerous actions, and been blocked 4 times:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:HughD reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked) April 2015

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked) May 2015 - Even here, EdJohnston wrote, "HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem."

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284#User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive285#User:HughD reported by User:Comatmebro (Result: Blocked 4 days)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274#User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action) The only reason he was not blocked was he apologized, and the admin accepted that.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271#User:Safehaven86 reported by User:HughD (Result: Referred to ANI) see the end of that thread.

I think HughD has displayed a pattern of behavior which is not conducive to the health of Wikipedia. Over the last two-three months, he has consistently failed to adhere to consensus reached on talk pages, he's been involved in

Thank you for your comment and participation, Onel5969. This supposed "content dispute" has brought up multiple issues regarding HughD's behavior. When it comes to consensus, he ignores it. He is not helpful nor friendly when it comes to understanding differences. I have only received negative comments from HughD, some of which have attacked me personally as a user. There are ways to discuss content in a friendly manner -- and honestly I am not sure if HughD is capable of this at this point in time. I would have to agree with everything the above user has stated, as well as the statement "I would suggest at least a

WP:TOPICBAN for HughD on this article and all Koch-related articles." Cheers. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro

15:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

All of the evidence and discussion in this thread indicates a content dispute between involved parties who have been editing in this area. There is no good evidence supporting a topic ban of any kind, at least one that would impact HughD's editing. When asked to provide a single diff supporting their contention, not a single editor can do so. Instead, we are subject to long, off-topic screeds by editors who have been involved on the other side of the content dispute, links to ancient disputes, requests to prove negatives and other fallacious arguments. In conclusion, no diffs supporting a topic ban, just mud flinging. On the other hand, I would certainly support a topic ban on the editors listed above who have been repeatedly caught whitewashing and violating NPOV in the Koch-related area, and who have devoted an enormous amount of time and energy into railroading one of their few critics who has pointed to their problematic edits. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

He seems to refuse to accept consensus and uses boards and relentless RfC's and tags to assert his views. The current dispute centers on building a COATRACK into . The AE request against Arthur Ruben appears retaliatory and forum shopping. AR doesn't appear to have contributed here but one forum wasn't enough. We how have a dubious assertion about the TeaParty case at AE (which is only plausible if that article becomes a COATRACK). And the 4th version of an attempt to add material that has been rejected multiple times. When new edits are rejected, we call the articles version "consensus" and HughD appears to ignore this. --DHeyward (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are you suggesting that the Americans for Prosperity article is not within the scope of the Tea Party case? That's clearly incorrect, as anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at reliable sources on the subject can clearly see. I can cite a lot of high-quality evidence to back that up, but it might be simpler and easier if we just agree to call a spade a spade here. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice: On Arbitration Enforcement board as well

A filing by HughD against Arthur Rubin on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard is running in parallel with this discussion. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arthur Rubin.

This does somewhat complicate ANI responses but admins and editors should feel free to review or participate in both. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much participation here by Arthur Rubin. The material that HughD argues should be included is outlined extensively here and in the other forum and an RfC on the talk page (4th time to be discussed). Three fora seeking help with a minority viewpoint seems a bit much. --DHeyward (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

There is an issue here (it's NPOV, not HughD)

Cross-posting my analysis of the situation from AE:

I know we're supposed to be focusing on conduct rather than content here, but I think it's very important to note that the preponderance of reliable sources very clearly support Hugh's "side" in the content dispute that prompted both this post and the one at AE.

The dispute is over the extent to which the article should discuss the financial and other connections between the Koch brothers and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), and, to a lesser extent, the extent to which AFP should be portrayed as a "Tea Party" group. (DHeyward, for example, has denied that this connection can be made at all, and would be COATRACK:[44][45]). To illustrate that the sources are clearly and unquestionably on HughD's side here, take a look at the version of the page that Arthur Rubin appears to have been happy with (ie, that he removed the NPOV tag on:[46]) Note that the name "Koch" appears in the article text exactly once - simply to note that David Koch chairs the AFP Foundation - but appears twenty-five times just in the titles of the references. Compare that to how the preponderance of reliable sources listed by Aquillion here place the relationship between AFP and the Koch's front-and-center in their coverage. Also compare it to how reliable, academic sources treat the subject.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]} (those are just some examples, I could cite a lot more if needed).

HughD has been the most vocal voice on the article's talk page asserting that the article needs to acknowledge and discuss AFP's connection to the Koch brothers in depth. He has often been outnumbered, and he has quite understandably gotten frustrated at times. Just as understandably, the people arguing with him have gotten frustrated with his persistence. There have been regretable statements made on both sides, but honestly, I don't think anyone's behavior or the article rises to the level of requiring admin or AE sanction -- although a warning to some about battleground behavior [47][48][49] and a reminder of what NPOV entails [50][51][52][53][54]) might be in order for some of those involved.

Bottom line: HughD should not be sanctioned for being a lone dissenting voice against a (claimed) local consensus which was incorrect and inconsistent with NPOV. I also hardly think Arthur deserves sanction for adding or removing a NPOV tag (after all, the NPOV of the article was, and is, in dispute). Everyone involved just needs to take a few deep breaths, relax, and refocus on what RS actually say. More generally, the article desperately needs more eyes/input to ensure that NPOV is maintained. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A person from Cambridge, Ontario, was blocked for one month for persistent disruptive editing: Special:Contributions/99.236.110.158. One of the stand-out traits of this person is the labelling of films as "box-office bombs" regardless of whether they have been called that by sources. Starting in December 2014, this person kept being reverted. User:CoolRaceDude picked up the flag for a little while in February 2015. Abandoning the registered account, this guy also edited articles related to the Canadian band, Gob (band), and he was active at List of films considered the worst.

Other IPs from the same area have been doing the same stuff:

• 173.32.90.158 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.75.167.197 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Here's an older (almost stale) IP doing the same stuff:

• 99.254.160.115 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

For instance, the article Reign Over Me is a particular target, the goal being to label the film as a bomb, a flop, a financial failure (even though it made a couple of million dollars). User:Willondon's been doing a great job of keeping down this kind of disruption:

• 99.236.110.158: [55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]
• CoolRaceDude: [74][75]
• 173.32.90.15: [76]

The article Muertos Vivos shows both of these IPs being interested in a Gob album:

• 99.236.110.158: "...not to feature bassist Craig Wood"... replacing Craig Wood...
• 173.32.90.158: ...without longtime bassist Craig Wood...

Can we get a similar block on the related IPs? Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

173.32.90.158 shares unrestrained film POV and an unusual recurring rounding "error"[77] with 98.213.0.205[78] and Ohad200180.[79] - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked 173.32.90.158 for one month and protected the main target (Reign Over Me) for one month. (If a few people could add Reign Over Me to their watch-lists that would be awesome, the number of watchers is shockingly low.) While 99.254.160.115 and 99.236.110.158 look similar, they are not on the same range and therefore no range block, unfortunately. I don't see how 216.75.167.197 is connected, other than geographically. 98.213.0.205 geolocates to Danville, Illinois (8 hr away by car), and is likely unrelated. You might consider creating a LTA page if the problem persists. This will have to be my last post here for a while, as the page is getting to be too big to load -- Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa. I agree that 98.213.0.205 is not the same person as box-office bomb dude. Binksternet (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)