Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expeditionradio
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC).
- Expeditionradio (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute[edit]
User:Expeditionradio continues to promote her website and investment in the Automatic link establishment system. Her inability to understand the Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OWN, WP:CIVIL and WP:VANDAL to name a few, should be ample evidence of her inability to continue as a Wikipedia editor. Manway (talk) 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- (A statement by Expeditionradio, improperly inserted here, has been moved to the proper Response section below) Tallaeus (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Cause of concern[edit]
Violation of the following Wikipedia procedures:
Refs 4, 5, 10, 12, 16 are links on Expeditionradio's commercial website promoting this technology. 5 of the unnumbered links are also. The links marked "Digital Stone-Age Petition" are on this website, but the PDFs linked do not show this nickname anywhere. Expeditionradio is insisting that since the references on her own web page show this derogatory name, it is valid.
WP:SPA Expeditionradio has not edited or created any articles besides Automatic link establishment.
WP:OWN and WP:LUC Expeditionradio continues to revert good-faith edits, calling them vandalism or page blanking.
WP:CIVIL Expeditionradio steadfastly refuses to accept comments from other users about her edits and reverts. Her talk page specifically states: "ERROR: This page is no longer active for comments" where WP:CIVIL states: "Editors are expected to be ... responsive to good-faith questions.
WP:VANDAL Expeditionradio calls other edits "vandalism", when they clearly are not. WP:VANDAL states: "If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism."
(Addresses, and phone numbers have been redacted to preserve privacy)
- (A response by Expeditionradio that was improperly placed here has been moved to the proper location in the Response section below) Tallaeus (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- User Expeditionradio obviously needs to be schooled in the proper use of Wikipedia, including where to put her side of the story in an RfC. She has also vandalized/blanked/deleted a vital part of this RfC, namely the part where a whois search on the website referenced in her article (www.hflink.com) clearly showed her to be the owner of the website, especially when great care was taken as not to reveal any addresses or phone numbers. The email address listed in the whois was vital in this report, showing that the user was also the author of many articles. Her allegations of sockpuppetry are unvalidated and unverified - and are not reported or listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Manway (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- And it gets worse. User Expeditionradio has posted the following on her talk page in response to the RFC/U notification: "Notice: Anything posted by anyone, other than the primary user, on this page will be instantly deleted without being read by anyone. This action was taken due to the user receiving harassment and personal attacks. Non-anonymous users are often subject to personal attack by anarchists or vandals who hide behind their cloak of anonymity to poison Wikipedia. Expeditionradio (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)" Clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Manway (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I concur 100% with Manway's assessment of this situation. Expeditionradio has assumed ownership of the Automatic Link Establishment article, reverting every edit that doesn't meet with her approval. The examples are so numerous, I simply refer interested parties to the [history page]. Her bad faith and incivility are evidenced by her repeated false claims of vandalism, her curt dismissal of a third opinion offered, and most glaringly, by her posting of the false "error" message and, more recently, the warning noted above, basically saying that she will ignore anyone and everyone's opinions. User has removed WP:NPOV dispute template when dispute has not been resolved, removed WP:WEASEL template & replaced it with a small-text version elsewhere in the disputed section, removed appropriately placed "weasel word" tags instead of removing the weasel words themselves. Her incivility is blatantly obvious in her response above, as well as on the Automatic Link Establishment discussion page. Since September 1, Expeditionradio has not heeded a single recommendation from any editor on potential improvements to the article's point of view, reliability of sources, or length. She has received WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:AGF warnings [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]], which she has labeled in her talk page edit summaries as "spam," "harassment spam," "vandalism," and a "personal attack," further evidence of her incivility & unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
In addition to the WP:COI example noted above by Manway, Expeditionradio is the founder and self-described "International Coordinator" of the HFLINK Amateur Radio ALE network mentioned in the article, and list owner and moderator of the Yahoo HFLINK discussion forum. Both the hflink.com and Yahoo HFLINK homepage have links to a "member store," where HFLINK logo merchandise is available for purchase, so a financial interest is assumed. She was previously warned of her COI by Athaenara [[5]], yet has not only failed to disclose it, but continues to actively conceal it. She has also canvassed off-Wiki for positive comments from group members, at least one of whom has participated in the discussion page, albeit neutrally, so far. Tallaeus (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I concur 100% with Manway's assessment of this situation. Expeditionradio has assumed ownership of the Automatic Link Establishment article, reverting every edit that doesn't meet with her approval. The examples are so numerous, I simply refer interested parties to the [history page]. Her bad faith and incivility are evidenced by her repeated false claims of vandalism, her curt dismissal of a third opinion offered, and most glaringly, by her posting of the false "error" message and, more recently, the warning noted above, basically saying that she will ignore anyone and everyone's opinions. User has removed WP:NPOV dispute template when dispute has not been resolved, removed WP:WEASEL template & replaced it with a small-text version elsewhere in the disputed section, removed appropriately placed "weasel word" tags instead of removing the weasel words themselves. Her incivility is blatantly obvious in her response above, as well as on the Automatic Link Establishment discussion page. Since September 1, Expeditionradio has not heeded a single recommendation from any editor on potential improvements to the article's point of view, reliability of sources, or length. She has received WP:NPA, WP:OWN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:AGF warnings [[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]], which she has labeled in her talk page edit summaries as "spam," "harassment spam," "vandalism," and a "personal attack," further evidence of her incivility & unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
- Expeditionradio is again canvassing off-Wiki in her Yahoo group, with a posting charging that the Wikipedia ALE article is under a "coordinated attack of vandalism" by "anti-tech hams." She has also outed me in that posting, in addition to her having previously outed me on the ALE article talk page, my user talk page, and hers (all cleaned up by Oversight). I have therefore added WP:OUTING to the list of policy violations. Tallaeus (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]
WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:OWN, WP:LUC, WP:CIVIL, WP:VANDAL
Also WP:CANVASS Tallaeus (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
and WP:OUTING Tallaeus (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Desired outcome[edit]
Expeditionradio is unable to comply with Wikipedia recognized guidelines and should be blocked from editing.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Automatic_link_establishment&oldid=240932288
---
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
Questions
[edit]
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Response[edit]
{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}
Response to concerns[edit]
The posting of this RFC is yet another hostile act perpetrated by users/user who are known to have used sockpuppets previously to vandalize Wikipedia. The sockpuppet user(s) have also previously harassed the user expeditionradio. Please remove all information such as personal emails from this RFC. Please delete this whole RFC request due to its hostile nature and malicious intent. Thank you. Expeditionradio (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC) (moved from Cause of Concern section above by Tallaeus (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC))
Users Manway and Tallaeus have made false statements on this RFC and posted a user's personal information here, as part of an coordinated personal attack upon user Expeditionradio. Such personal information has been removed. The main purpose of this RFC is to harass the user Expeditionradio. This RFC should be ignored. Expeditionradio (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (moved from Cause of Concern section above by Manway (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC) )
The truth is, so far, there has not really been any coherent dispute. There have been a number of opinions expressed, and there have been some normal editing issues. There has been no "promotion" of any user website. The user(s) who initiated this RFC have neither participated in good faith discussions about dispute or content, nor contributed any significant edits on the Wikipedia article Automatic link establishment, other than destroying Wikipedia factual content they dislike. User Expeditionradio has participated in many compromise and consensus building initiatives within the framework of the Automatic link establishment talk (discussion) page. User Expeditionradio has arrived at excellent consensus with many editors of the article over the past 18 months of editing of the Wikipedia Automatic link establishment article. However, recently user(s) Manway/Talleaus, along with their respective sockpuppets, have engaged in blanking of verified citation reference material and validly referenced historic matter within the encyclopedia article. Repeated restorations of the article by many different editors, and warnings to user(s) Manway/Talleaus (and sockpuppet/anonymous IP addresses) went unheeded. It appears that if indeed there is a dispute, it is solely a one-sided alleged dispute involving user(s) Manway/Talleaus activities to further their opposition to Automatic Link Establishment, by seeking to kill as much of the article as possible; to maim it and as many other editors as possible through a death-by-a-thousand-cuts. Attempts by several users toward arriving at honest discourse with user(s) Manway/Talleaus have failed because user(s) Manway/Talleaus were unresponsive to diplomatic overtures. User(s) Manway/Talleaus have continued to destroy parts of the Wikipedia Automatic link establishment encyclopedia article throughout the month of September 2008, including since they initiated this RFC, in spite of many warnings by various editors to stop. Since Expeditionradio is one of the most visible and technically significant editors for the Wikipedia Automatic Link Establishment encyclopedic article, user(s) Manway/Talleaus personally attacked user Expeditionradio, solely as a tactic in their anarchy strategy, rather than negotiate on content in good faith within the article discussion page. This RFC thus is simply a sham, a tactic; it is not an attempt to mitigate or resolve a dispute; it has but a single purpose: to game the system and cause trouble. Expeditionradio (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) (moved from Cause of Concern section above by Tallaeus (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
Users endorsing this response[edit]
Questions[edit]
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
This summary expresses my views as a person providing a WP:3O early in this conflict and (more or less unsuccessfully) trying to mediate.
The original article was mainly written by Expeditionradio. It's about a technique used in amateur radio and, as you can see, there is a debate in that community whether this thing should be legal/moral/whatever. The users Expeditionradio and Tallaeus - the original parties in this dispute - both appear to come from the amateur radio community and have had previous dealings outside of Wikipedia (in web forums etc). Both seem to exclusively edit this one article. User Manway is editing other topics, though, and joined the discussion later.
I provided a third opinion on what seemed to be a small scale revert war and a disagreement about appropriate sources [6]. I also tried to calm down things a bit and get people to work on the content [7] [8].
Unfortunately the revert war continues, with each party reverting the other's modifications within a day. Not much progress is made on the talk page. While I've suggested an RfC on this topic, I'd have preferred an RFC on the dispute itself instead on the specific user behaviour. But since it has been brought up, I provide this summary here.
Expeditionradio seems to feel strongly about this article, and labels edits from the opposing faction as "vandalism", "grafitti" and "destructive", or implies that other editors are "sandboxing" [9]. It appears that she assume malicious intent in the other users and therefore that it's not necessary to assume good faith [10] and that these edits may be reverted at will [11]. Expeditionradio's definition of vandalism [12] is somewhat different from WP:Vandalism. (And although there were numerous accusations of vandalism, sockpuppetry, etc. it has never been reported as such).
The other side, in turn, has taken offence with being called vandals and being told [13]] how to behave.
Unfortunately the antagonistic stance has ensured that the edit war is going on with no sign of a resolution on the talk page. Even worse, "neutral" contributors have been driven away by this dispute [14].
The only reason I still take interest in this is because it leaves the article in an unstable state, and the editors in this dispute don't appear to be settling this by themselves.
Desired outcome of this: Personally, I don't think a permanent block is called for. Expeditionradio contributed significantly to the this article, and like 90% are virtually undisputed. However, it should be made clear that disputes have to be resolved on the talk page in a civil manner. Therefore I'd like to see an admin having a look at this and hand out some stronger warnings and, if necessary, some temporary blocks to get this back on track. Averell (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
- Endorse. Expeditionradio clearly has constructive contributions to make, thus an indef block would likely be counterproductive. However, her current modus is clearly designed to intimidate outsiders into staying away. This can and should be corrected. The WP:OUTING issue, however, is a serious problem and must be addressed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
While I am an amateur radio operator, my view is strictly from a Wikipedia viewpoint. I am neither "for" or "against" the ALE protocol, in fact, I believe the amateur service must move forward and embrace new technologies if we are to survive.
What I am against is the condescending, narrow-minded, "we're better than you" attitude shown by User Expeditionradio. Look at the following statements referenced earlier:
Since it appears to be that user's first attempt at Wikipedia, we will just let it slide :)
...we don't need someone to give us a good preaching on what is or isn't vandalism. It is quite obvious to all of us who the destructive editors are and who the constructive editors are.
...It is difficult for most of us to believe...
...we must at some point assume that their intent is nothing but vandalism...
It is quite obvious to all of us who the destructive editors are and who the constructive editors are.
"We"? "Most of us"? "All of us"? You're not talking about me. Speak for yourself and don't place yourself "above" everyone who wishes to improve your article.
The blatant self-promotion referenced earlier does not belong on Wikipedia, as well. The constant referencing of Expeditionradio's personal website is disturbing.
The reformatting and deleting of content and criticism shows Expeditionradio's intent to be at odds with the basic principles of Wikipedia. There was excerpts from the "whois" from the website "hflink.com" on this page that were deleted, even after the editor took great pains to remove addresses and phone numbers, both of which could be found again by a simple "whois" search. This information was vital to prove the link between the references and the article's author. It was not WP:OUTING as the care was shown to remove identifying info and that same info could be found by a simple whois search.
Those are the arguments I have with her article. Not ALE, not the furthering of the Amateur service, not the forward look to technology. It's the smug, condescending attitude of the author and editor that I believe to be incompatible with Wikipedia.
- Once again, user Expeditionradio shows either her ignorance or deliberate flouting of Wikipedia conventions and policies by posting an answer to this RfC in the wrong section. I have placed the response (with no changes apart from an added footer explaining the move, as the history will show) in the proper section for her. The smug, condescending attitude from Expeditionradio continues. User Expeditionradio needs to understand that the links posted on her article can lead even the most basic of computer users to be able to find her personal identifying information, including email addresses and phone numbers. If she does not want this information available, she should remove said links from her article. Manway (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposed solutions[edit]
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
Template[edit]
1)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template[edit]
2)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template[edit]
3)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Discussion[edit]
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
Conclusion[edit]
Expeditionradio has not edited since October 2, and as a result I feel comfortable closing this. Should this user decide to return to Wikipedia, she is expected to follow the policies she is accused of not following, especially WP:SPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OUTING. Should any issues continue, the user may be blocked indefinitely from the site. Wizardman 04:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)