www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 3:25 UTC, 7 October 2005, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other then to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description[edit]

Mel Etitis (talk · contribs) has been involved in disputes in several articles, including music related articles. These disputes have lasted for quite some time. There have been some attempts to resolve the dispute, however, many of these negotiations have fallen apart. Mel Etitis and several other editors have resorted to reverting each other for quite some time.

In several instances, Mel Etitis has claimed that contrary to Manual of Style reversions count as simple vandalism. In one instance, he admitted to violating 3RR himself arguing that is was justified because the other user was committing "simple vandalism" (27 July 2005, WP:ANI) (which would allegedly permit Mel to make such reversions).

Mel Etitis states on his user page that admins are entrusted by the community, therefore they should be held to even a higher standard then other editors. While he should not be expected to sit idly by while articles are changed in a adverse fashion, he should work to resolve these disputes instead of reverting changes. Having a "revert first, ask questions later" attitude hampers progress, adds to the frustration in a dispute, and sets a bad example for other users.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) Below is a list of some of the articles that contain reversions/disputes:






















Applicable policies[edit]

  1. Three revert rule
  2. Wikipedia:Revert - "Edit wars considered harmful"

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Request by Bmicomp to stop reverting - 03:57, 5 October 2005
    Response from Mel Etitis - 07:12, 5 October 2005
    Response from Bmcomp - 14:09, 5 October 2005
    Response from Mel Etitis - 15:38, 5 October 2005
  2. Request by Phroziac to stop reverting - 20:08, 5 October 2005
    No response by Mel Etitis.

Evidence of continued behavior after attemps to resolve dispute[edit]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phroziac(talk) 03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Ral315 WS 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's an increasing problem on wikipedia that admins are some of the most active and frequent participants in revert wars. That it takes two to revert war is not an excuse either, as admins in general should be working to foster consensus. Rangerdude 18:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Anittas 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BGC 11:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tony SidawayTalk 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC) It's disturbing that an administrator is regularly involved in revert wars. Revert wars to enforce the manual of style are well off the anti-vandalism radar. A clear line needs to be drawn well away from this behavior.[reply]
  6. This user should discuss the modifications he/she made when someone else reverts them before instead of engaging in a revert war. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Domnu Goie 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC) revert wars are not constructive.[reply]
  8. It doesn't matter in the slightest who you are, you do not revert war. Reverting is not improvement; improvement is improvement. I would expect any administrator to know what consensus is and how to work towards it. You have become as stubborn and closed-minded as the people you are fighting. Rob Church Talk 01:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jeorjika 02:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC) agreed with those above.[reply]
  10. There is absolutely no excuse for an edit war. Kelly Martin 03:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unacceptable behaviour. Especially from an admin. Winnermario 16:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I have returned from hiding from Wikipedia for the past few months to ensure Mel Etitis receives the appropriate for his disgusting actions. When I first joined Wikipedia back in April or May of this year, I began to change the headers in various articles. An example of this would be in the Avril Lavigne section where it originally said, "Personal life and trivia" to "Personal Life and Trivia" (proper English). However, I had yet to find out that what I had changed was the correct format on Wikipedia. I eventually did find out that I had changed the proper format, and I apologized for this, but Mel Etitis pointed this out: "Your first language can't be English", because I had not known the Wikipedia policy. [120] I felt greatly insulted, and a few months later, I chose to abandon Wikipedia. Mel Etitis will make up excuses; he will say he never should have said that or that he did not know what else to say, or something, but you know what? The truth is that Mel Etitis is a foolish person, a devil. Try and work your way out of this one, Mel. Just try. DrippingInk 17:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agreed with most of the above comments. I've had disagreements with people in the past, and we've been able to settle them. But it's hard when you have an admin who insults and harrasses editors. OmegaWikipedia 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mel Etitis uses his administrative power to bind extremely biased original research to the meanings of historical documents. According to the Inalienable rights article that he protects with his administrative power, The U.S. Declaration of Independence is based on "principles" of "religions" or "naturalistic fallacy". Although references and sources linking the Declaration with "naturalistic fallacy" or any "religion" have been requested for weeks, Mr. Etitis has failed to provide any such source or allow for the uncited criticism to be removed. --Zephram Stark 19:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The revert first, ask questions later habit is getting out of control on Wikipedia. People active in the old days would cringe at the liberties the new crop of self-styled experts take. Mel seems to be one of these. His offenses do not justify even a short ban. They do justify de-admining. JDG 07:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mel's behavior would cause him to fail any attempt at obtaining adminship today. He is a textbook example of an abusive admin and I support starting any sort of de-admining procedure. Klonimus 10:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I had never heard of Mel until I recently ran into his "revert, not edit" style of editing in which he reverted like clock work almost every day for a week The City of God. He never gave substantive reasons other than vauge "pov" "grammar" "original research" without really backing it up why. It seems to be resolved for now (he's stopped reverting) but it was handled poorly, it was an edit war effectivly. He is also using line-breaks in articles which is non-standard (it's not in the MoS) and continues to put them in articles according to his personal taste, saying that it's justified because they exist in other articles (which I assume he has added himself, mostly). --Stbalbach 15:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I don't question his good intentions, only his approach. He was a little bit to gung-ho in deleting Category:French Mexicans, he reverted my attempts to improve the category. I don't deny that he had some good points but he didn't take the time to explain those points and chose to just revert me a couple of times. I wish this revert-frenzy of some admins would end for good. --Vizcarra 18:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The "evidence" shows me trying to maintain articles in the face of stubborn and aggressive resistenace by a small group of editors who openly admitted that they didn't care about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or accepted style. The supposed evidence for trying to resolve the issue consists of two messages on my Talk page two days ago. There's no acknowledgement of the fact that I've stopped reverting, have placed a number of the affected articles at RfC, in order to get outside comment (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature), have been discussing the possibility of setting up a discussion page concerning some of the issues (see Talk:The Trouble with Love Is), and have myself spent a great deal of time in (genuine) attempts to resolve the problems at the Talk pages of the editors concerned (see the histories of User talk:OmegaWikipedia, User talk:Ultimate Star Wars Freak, and User talk:Winnermario for examples). My attempts to bring Wikipedia style and standards to a large group of articles has been met by a refusal to discuss the issues and hysterical insults, and the small posse of editors named above (recently joined by Anittas (talk · contribs), and some new accounts and IP addresses making exactly the same edits with the same style of edit summary [or none]) has been engaging in a sort of concerted campaign aimed at me personally. BMIComp and Phroziac have come to this very recently, and faced with a situation in which some six or seven genuine editors, plus various likely sock-puppets & mock-puppets, have been reverting, have decided to focus on me. I don't know what their motivation is, but it seems clearly to be neither a sense of fairness nor a genuine concern for the quality of Wikipedia. (In the case of Phroziac (talk · contribs), I may be wrong, but I think that his only connection with this is that he left one message on my Talk page a couple of days ago, which makes his position as certifying the basis of the RfC shaky I'd have thought.)

Oh, I should add that, because my view that persistent reverting of edits that brought an article in line with MoS, naming policies, etc., is vandalism, I didn't deliberately or knowingly break 3RR; I broke it once (I think) inadvertently, and was more careful thereafter. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SqueakBox 16:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC). Mel looks to be doing a good job in good faith and this rfc should not be here.[reply]
  3. Extraordinary Machine 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC). While Mel's violation of 3RR may be cause for concern, I think the real problem here is how a small but seemingly omnipresent group of editors are automatically reverting genuinely useful edits made to "their" articles, despite justifications made by several other users (see Talk:The Trouble with Love Is, as well as an old discussion at the Village Pump) on why those edits should stay.[reply]
  4. Sean Jelly Baby? 00:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)-Also agree with Extraordinary Machine above.[reply]
  5. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Mel is trying to maintain the style laid out in the MoS, and at least one of the editors he's up against, User:OmegaWikipedia, has been reverting not only Mel's style changes, but also the grammar and spelling mistakes that Mel had corrected. I'm also not sure that I see the diffs offered above as evidence of an attempt to resolve the dispute.[reply]
    SlimVirgin, seeing as you know more about this case then others, I'm suprised you are misrepresenting the truth of the matter. OmegaWikipedia 18:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC) The continual and misleading use of the term "vandalism" by the complainants in the edit summaries of their reversions of Mel's edits makes me doubt their sense of perspective.[reply]
  7. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I've seen nothing to suggest Mel is acting outside of good faith.[reply]
  8. Duk 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FeloniousMonk 04:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I've only seen Mel act in good faith and in the best interest of the community.[reply]
  11. Mel is a good admin who deals appropriately with bad editors. I agree that Mel is editing in good faith. — Davenbelle 10:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. In addition to the conduct described here, members of the group of "editors" who have targeted Mel for abuse also edit talk pages (principally their own) to remove reports of their inappropriate behavior and create the impression that Mel (and others) are acting without attempting to discuss and reach consensus. Some also systematically use deceptive, often outright falsified, edit summaries to disguise their actions. Monicasdude 16:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Before this thing came up I've had differences of opinion with Mel. Mel is not unfair in solving differences of opinion. I subscribe Mel completely on this one. Don't let the turkeys get you down! --Francis Schonken 18:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Finally able to look through the diffs and the talk pages - Mel dealt with this correctly. The rest of us failed him by not providing adequate support for his effort to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Guettarda 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. It looks to me like Mel is doing his best in the face of attacks. Apart from anything else, the talk page here makes that obvious. William M. Connolley 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  17. Karl Meier 20:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. From what I have seen, I believe this RfC is in bad faith. As far as music-related articles are concerned, Mel has been stressing himself with attempting to properly cleanup and format highly POV, gushy, and biased articles written by pop music fans who have little or no regard for Wikipedia standards, and show no interest in attempting to conform to them. Breaking the 3RR was a minor mistake; what he really needs, instead of an RfC, are more moderators to help him with cleanups and handling of errant editors.--FuriousFreddy 00:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  20. From everything I've had the misfortune to witness or be involved in myself, Mel has taken every method in good faith. The real problem is a small, but tenacious group of individuals who don't respect the MoS; or any of WikiPedia's guidelines for that matter. Several of the endorsers of this RfC in particular are questionable, and OW has skirted dangerously close to getting his own RfC at times. A real solution to this issue would be a larger core of moderators (other than Mel by his lonesome) enforcing WikiPedia guidelines (esp. MoS) across the music articles. Volatile 18:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Though I think Mel tends to use the term "vandalism" a little too quickly (for many cases I'd prefer "degradation" or some other alternative), I agree with the gist of what he says here. Hoary 15:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  22. El_C 05:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Stirling Newberry 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Moumine 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  26. User:BrandonYusufToropov Mel is totally undeserving of this kind of ridiculous proceeding. Fortunately, the claims against him vanish into insignificance on close inspection. Mel should be flattered by the nature of the opposition he has generated; it's a sign that he's doing a good job. BrandonYusufToropov 09:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Denis Diderot 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Outside views[edit]

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" sections, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Angr[edit]

Clearly, edit warring is bad. And I don't think the changes Mel Etitis was reverting count as "simple vandalism"; therefore he should not have exceeded the 3RR. Nevertheless, from reading the comments at Talk:The Trouble with Love Is#Reasons For Changes, it does seem that he was trying to maintain NPOV and reduce the U.S.-centeredness (or in the case of Avril Lavigne, Canada-centeredness) of the pages in question. A request for comment on the layout of the pages would have been more appropriate than a request for comment on Mel Etitis's behavior.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Angr/t?k t? mi 06:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --fvw* 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Volatile 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Extraordinary Machine 22:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by McClenon[edit]

Mel Etitis has posted a previous question about whether repeated reverts of his MoS edits should be considered vandalism-like. In looking at what I think the problem really is, it appears that there are several loyal editors of the music articles who have a disregard of the Manual of Style, and who want the usage in the articles to resemble the usage in the fanzines and the music press. It appears to me that what they actually think is that the Manual of Style should be revised with respect to music to reflect the usage of the music press. What we really have is a difference of opinion as to what the stylistic standards should be.

There is (as far as I can tell) a consensus that reverting of MoS edits to replace them with non-standard style is not vandalism. As a result, the 3RR rule should apply. Mel should not revert the same article more than three times in 24 hours.

There should be a discussion of whether to change the MoS standards for music, rather than revert wars and edit wars and claims of vandalism. What is needed is not a user conduct RfC (although there has been a minor violation by Mel in going over 3RR), but a standards RfC. Robert McClenon 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (though I think ME as a more experienced editor should recognize this as the way to tackle the dispute and not edit-war over it)[reply]
  3. I think inadequate consideration has been given to the possibility that the editors involved in these disputes (with the exception of Mel, an administrator and highly experienced Wikipedian) may simply not know the proper way to question policy, or even be aware of policy at all. Mel, as an administrator and highly experienced Wikipedian, should probably have recognized that this is what was going on and assisted these editors in starting a discussion of the appropriateness of policy. To instead revert them repeatedly is biting the newbies. To the extent that Mel may have been biting newbies, and more generally failing to live up to his obligations as an administrator, this RfC is justified. Otherwise, I agree with Robert McClenon's opinion. Kelly Martin 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Saying that revert wars are bad is not terribly controversial and I'm sure Mel agrees with it too. This clearheaded analysis comes closest to identifying the real crux of this dispute. --Michael Snow 21:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC) A standards RfC would be a dream come true.[reply]

Addendum[edit]

I should add that if the persistent non-standard editors refuse to propose changes to the Manual of Style, then they are being disruptive. If they are persistently reverting MoS edits, then Mel would have a right to go to dispute resolution against them.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 00:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support Mel's right to raise a user conduct RFC with respect to these editors. I do not support his right to edit war them into 3RR blocks, which is what he appears to be doing in these cases. Kelly Martin 03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would just like to point out that RfCs against some were considered (and, in one case, actually drawn up), but it was decided to try and resolve the situation peacefully first. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Pjacobi[edit]

Cleaning up after contributors who don't share the goal of writing an encyclopedia and who think International is the antonym of U.S. is a tough job. Mel Etitis should get more support in doing so. --Pjacobi 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Pjacobi 18:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carnildo 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CSTAR 04:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Calton | Talk 09:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Robert McClenon 15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SqueakBox 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Duk 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Monicasdude 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FeloniousMonk 05:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Karl Meier 21:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Volatile 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Viriditas | Talk 02:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Extraordinary Machine 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gamaliel[edit]

It takes at least two parties to conduct an edit war. This RfC makes no mention of who ME is reverting or why he is doing it. This isn't to say that edit warring is justified by the actions of others, just that the context of this dispute is missing, and given the absence of any context presented by the filers of this RfC, I see no reason not to take ME at his word. Two requests for a single party in an edit war to stop reverting is not an attempt to resolve anything, it is merely scolding which avoids the root problem here, as does this RfC.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Gamaliel 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carnildo 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jkelly 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Robert McClenon 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SqueakBox 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Duk 18:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Monicasdude 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Volatile 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hapsiainen 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Viriditas | Talk 02:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Extraordinary Machine 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jkelly[edit]

I would like to put forward my strong conviction that this RfC shows poor judgement. While I am sure that BMIComp and Phroziac are only holding Mel Etitis to the high standard that he has asked them to, this RfC, coming at this point in time does not help Wp. It instead reinforces the idea held by some other parties at the heart of this dispute that the way in which one can avoid having one's contributions copyedited to conform to Wp policy is to complain about being harrassed (see this edit ), attack the copyeditor's character (see this edit), round up a number of potential allies (see this edit) and then make the other user feel unwelcome in various places throughout Wp (see this edit). This is behaviour that the community needs to discourage, not give a gift of legitimacy to.

Furthermore, although this is less of a direct connection, I suggest that this RfC discourages editors from imposing standards upon an article in the face of belligerance. In summary, while I generally support holding admins to a higher standard than regular editors, there is also a larger context that needs thoughtful examination before going forward with third-party dispute resolution processes.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Jkelly 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Indeed. Willmcw 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Robert McClenon 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SqueakBox 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Duk 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Monicasdude 18:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shinobu 10:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hoary 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The talk page of this RfC has convinced me that ME is the wronged party here. Gamaliel 17:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Agree with Gamaliel. Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The conduct of some of the endorsers of this RfC amounts to playground behavior, and should not be accepted here. Volatile 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Extraordinary Machine 22:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Qirex 10:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Anittas[edit]

Bad things have been said by me, intentionally - things I don't regret saying. However, people here seem to have been missed two things:

1. Winnermario and OmegaWikipedia tried to compromise with Mel; they tried to reason with him; they tried to meet him in the middle - all to no avail. Mel doesn't have a problem with just the MoS, but also with table viewing and additional information which he deemed unnecessary to the specific articles.

2. I expressed the will to go back to status quo with Mel. I didn't ask to be his best friend. I asked for a what I believe, was a reasonble thing: to burry the hatchet. Mel gave me the cold shoulder. He only addressed me in third-person. This indicated, at least to me, that he's not interested in ending our conflict.

Furthermore, I will say that some the people here argued different things for wrong reasons. My conflict with Mel has little to do with him violating the 3RR and with his refusal to actually listen to the other party. This conflict started before I got to the scene. People who tried to excuse Mel's behaviour by mentioning my agressive temper which was used against him, are wrong. Those problems don't relate to each other.

It's true that I reverted some of the articles in question, mainly because I don't see the harm in having those extra tables; but again, this has nothing to do with me organizing people to criticize Mel, or insulting him. He didn't revert the articles because I insulted him on my talk-page! If we are to include those seperate problems, then let us also discuss the subject that caused them. --Anittas 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. OmegaWikipedia 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC) As I mentioned in my outside view, I've tried to talk to Mel, and third parties have been called in, but the opinions of the third party suddenly don't exist when Mel doesnt agree with them. I've always tried to start anew with Mel, but was met with similar coldness. OmegaWikipedia 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Winnermario 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) The above are the facts. It appears that the users who are backing up Mel Etitis are using Anittas's, OmegaWikipedia's, DrippingInk's and my fury and anger against us to support him. For example, check out the talk page where DrippingInk made a comment, but User:SlimVirgin and User:Kelly Martin used his fury against him to make it look like he was the criminal when it was Mel Etitis who insulted DrippingInk. This is unacceptable and makes us look like the criminals when we are not. Winnermario 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bonaparte, 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC). I fully agree with Anittas. He made his points very clear.Bonaparte 13:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Tony Sidaway[edit]

Edit warring is bad for Wikipedia. That's not just me speaking, it's the voice of Wikipedia policy.

Wikipedia official policy on reverts, a policy that everyone is expected to follow, states:

  • If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.

In a recent arbitration case, Yuber, the Committee adopted the following principle by five votes to nil:

  • Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors.

It went further, passing the following remedy on one of its own number, Jayjg, by four votes to nil with one abstention:

  • Jayjg (talk · contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.

In that case, the Committee has chosen to ban one editor from a class of articles for one month, and to place another on probation, primarily for edit warring.

It is bad for Wikipedia when an editor engages in edit wars. When that editor is an administrator, it is also bad for administrator morale, it makes admimnistrators look like hypocrites, and when he is supported in his warring behavior it brings inevitable and quite justifiable accusations of cronyism. It is thus a very serious matter indeed.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tony SidawayTalk 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely agree with this. There is no excuse for an edit war. There's a reason we have Requests for Comment, the Administrator Notice Board, and user and article discussion pages. Every editor is expected to use these things in favor to engaging in edit warring. Kelly Martin 03:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ral315 WS 07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I agree that Mel's edits were in good faith, but edit wars should not be tolerated.[reply]
  4. Robert McClenon 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rangerdude 07:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Vizcarra 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Charles Stewart 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC): Mel's attempt to justify his violations of 3RR with the vandalism clause provide a particularly poor example for WP.[reply]

Outside view by FeloniousMonk[edit]

I've been watching this situation for over a week, and have been peripherally involved in trying to get those who opposed Mel to cease making personal attacks. During this time I saw Mel only contribute positively to Wikipedia and act in good faith. On the other hand, several of the above, particularly Anittas, were actively badgering Mel with numerous personal attacks.

Mel brought the difficulty he was having in his efforts to the attention of fellow admins at WP:AN/I several times asking for assistance. Few responded, and none of those who chastise him here now bothered to respond, much less assist. Mel was only seeking assistance in tidying and conforming articles to the MOS. That he is here now is indicative of the failures other admins, not his own. That fellow admins who failed to act would now criticize him for pushing forward in spite of their lack of response to his call for help is shameful.

For those here who'd insist on a zero-tolerance for admins who revert back their good efforts undone by those with no claim other than defending what they perceive to be their article (and that is what Mel faced): Conforming an article to the MOS should be non-controversial. Wikipedia enjoins all responsible editors to do so, admins doubly so. That a few particular editors decide to take offense to those doing this work because of protectiveness over their perceived turf, etc. is not sufficient justification for Mel or anyone else to have to take it to RFC just to get enough support to move forward with tidying.

To insist on rigid adherence to inflexible rules is to prescribe gridlock for Wikipedia. Admins have in the past been afforded discretion in how to respond in these matters. How many here have benefited from having that discretion granted by the community? Mel's case is no different. Mel asked that the community show integrity when he needed assistance. This RFC has been the community's response.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. FeloniousMonk 04:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shinobu 10:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC) — except I would point out that the MoS is not policy, but even so, Mel's edits were generally improving the articles by correcting spelling and grammar too, and he should have been supported in that.[reply]
  4. I endorse this, although I would have chosen a less strong word than shameful – perhaps unfortunate. Of course people who feel very strongly about the harmfulness of edit warring are quite right to say so here. I also feel that Reversions are useless, please don't do it is not sufficient evidence of really trying and failing to resolve the dispute. I read the posts on WP:ANI, and it's obvious that Mel asked for help, and got some, but not very much. Finally, although I don't like edit wars, I feel that for Mel to have started an RfC on Anittas, et al. would have been a far more counterproductive example of biting newcomers than simply reverting edits, while explaining that these edits did not conform to the MoS, which is what he did. Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hoary 14:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Monicasdude 16:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The talk page of this RfC has convinced me that ME is the wronged party here. Gamaliel 17:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Duk 17:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Volatile 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Extraordinary Machine 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Shinobu[edit]

I've just finished wading through the edit summaries, and although I have given my support to two of the statements above, I still feel I want to say one or two words about this.

Revert warring is bad. Usually it doesn't lead to a solution, and the summaries above show that's true in this case as well.

However, most of ME's edits seem to be based on good faith. It is clear to me that ME needed to do something - leaving the articles in question alone was no option if you keep our goal of writing factual, neutral and correctly styled encyclopaedia in mind. Seen in this context RfC'ing ME seems to me an ill-adviced act.

That is not to say I would have acted the same way if I would have been put in his situation. For instance, ME could have filed RfC's or taken them to the ArbCom. Granted, the bad edits would have remained, but since the other parties remained editing as well, effectively the bad edits remained in any case.

As for deliberately ignoring the MoS, it seems clear to me that in most cases that's vandalism, and I think many people would agree with me. Since ME has the same opinion regarding this matter, then why didn't he block the other parties? (Or did I miss that? If so, why didn't it help?) I always understood vandals got blocked, and that seems to me to be a much more effective way than trying to fight them in a revert war.

But, although I disagree with his methods in this case, I think that while writing a quality encyclopaedia a goal of ME, it's not a goal of the others.

Leaves me to note that the way the initiators of this RfC contacted ME was quite unhelpful considering what the real problem was. "I know you think the dispute resolution process is fruitless" — so why not try to make it less so?

It is obvious that ME is not the bad guy here (even though he did break procedure) and I would have expected at least a bit more patience on behalf of the initiators (the first message left on ME's talk page was dated the 5th, it's now only a few days later) and, perhaps, a bit more wisdom.

Finally, since this RfC has started, I hope that whatever happens everyone involved learns something from it, this includes ME, the initiators and, call me an idealist if you will, the others.

Cordially yours, Shinobu 11:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this (and to other editors who have written supportive things). I don't know if it's done to reply, but I'll just explain that I didn't block anyone for vandalism because, first, the question as to whether their persistent reversion of MoS edits counted as vandalism was being discussed (with many people disagreeing with me), and secondly, because I was too heavily involved with the articles to block them myself. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 12:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Outside view by OmegaWikipedia[edit]

As one of the people that Mel has accused, I am a bit disappointed that people are choosing to believe his generalizations about editors he has been having conflict with, without looking at the other side. I have never admitted and I don't have a disregard for Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or accepted style like he claims.

In addition, other users like User:SlimVirgin are trying to claim that I am reverting spelling and grammatical errors on purpose. That is not true at all. When I first got caught up in an edit war with Mel, he kept reverting everything I did. Even after other admins User:Everyking and User:Violetriga warned him not to, he continued to roll back edits. As I was a relative newcomer at that time, and I saw an admin displaying this behavior, I believed it was the Wikipedia norm.

On We Belong Together, Mel raised issues about the spelling errors reverted in our edit wars. I explained to him that that was not my intention, I only wanted to roll back other changes and that they just got rolled back. I also explained to him that when he rolled back, he reverted my good edits. Nevertheless, after he made a point of talking about this, I made my best efforts not to roll back everything, but only the changes that I thought were needed.

Mel was still not happy with this, so User:SlimVirgin was called on to speak on his behalf. My main issues were about the spelling out of numbers as numerals and remix capitalization. I told SlimVirgin that the MoS allows numbers to be spelled out and provided links. I also explained to SlimVirgin that the remixes should be capitalized as they are titles (not descriptions like Mel was arguing for). Slim asked my sources to show that this was the industry norm, and I provided sources to her. After all of this, I thought the edit war would be over. But, Mel continued with this behavior. I didn't know what to do. I had believed that SlimVirgin was speaking on behalf of Mel. She suddenly disappeared and I was left to fend for myself again.

Another main issue I had with Mel concerned Since U Been Gone. We had a disagreement over the header. The issue was taken to RFC. Another user came in and provided a compromise. I thought the matter was over, and things were fine for a bit. But, somehow Mel suddenly decided to interpret the third party's comment differently. I was also in disbelief here. I wanted to compromise and work things out with Mel. But he's shown that even when a third party is involved and tries to compromise he wont' listen.

As Mel has mentioned, he has pointed out some MoS issues to me. I have taken note of them, and for that, I'm glad he pointed them out to me. However, I do not engage in reverting MoS edits on purpose. When he has pointed out things to me, I make my best efforts not to revert them, and I don't just revert them for fun like he is trying to claim. I do have some issues with two major things that I believe are covered by the MoS: the spelling out of numbers and remix capitalization. As I mentioned above, the MoS does allow numbers to be written out. Other users have pointed this out to him time and again especially on the talk page of We Belong Together. Mel, however, always mentions that he has manuals which say otherwise. Although his manuals may say otherwise, if the Wikipedia MoS says we can write out numbers as numerals, shouldn’t we be allowed to? My other issue, as mentioned above, is the remix capitalization. If Mel is trying to claim that this is my "anti-MoS" edits, I have to disagree. I see the remix as an extension of the title of a song, and believe it should be capitalized where needed. He sees it as a description. As mentioned above, SlimVirgin asked for proof that this was the industry standard, and I provided it to her. However, Mel continued to revert this even after I provided proof and justification.

It has also been difficult to talk to Mel at times, because he can be very rude and insulting at times. Like User:Kelly Martin stated, please don’t bite newcomers. I've had disagreements with people in the past. In fact, I'm having one right now with User:Hoary. Even though we disagree on almost everything, he has been very polite and courteous and has talked to me with respect. It was hard for me to talk to Mel, when he kept insulting me, and speaking to me in a tone that I felt was derogatory. At one point he even said to me something along the lines of "you're not going to make a lot of friends here" and labeled me as a "pop music editor in concert". I found these terms very insulting and offensive and almost as a personal attack. He has done with this with other users too as User:DrippingInk has mentioned. If he had an issue with my edits, that's fine. Please talk to me like Hoary, but nice about it. But it is hard to talk to someone who makes you feel uncomfortable with his insults.

With that all said and done,. I don't want to wish any bad will onto others. Yes, we've had our fights in the past, and maybe I'm just naive, but I hope we can all work this out peacefully. I never wanted it to escalate to this point, but as I mentioned in two previous attempts to resolve, Mel just ignored the third party's opinions. don’t want to be a dreamer either. At one point I have asked him if we could try to start on a new leaf and he stated that he was not interested in olive branches. As I've mentioned if Mel continues to ignore third opinions who try to help and compromise, I see no choice but to carry on with this RFC and any further options that may entail.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Anittas 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Very well stated. I didn't have the patience to explain this to the community; regardless, those people who are on his side don't care how Mel treats us. To them, we are filth.[reply]
  2. Winnermario 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) The above are the facts. It appears that the users who are backing up Mel Etitis are using Anittas's, OmegaWikipedia's, DrippingInk's and my fury and anger against us to support him. For example, check out the talk page where DrippingInk made a comment, but User:SlimVirgin and User:Kelly Martin used his fury against him to make it look like he was the criminal when it was Mel Etitis who insulted DrippingInk. This is unacceptable and makes us look like the criminals when we are not.[reply]

Addendum (Just for Clarification)[edit]

Just for clarification because it was brought up by elsewhere - by spelling out numbers as numerals, I meant as #57 or No. 57 instead of number fifty-seven. Also by remix capitalization, I meant proper capitalization to the remix portion of a song's title (like "Honey (Remix)" instead of "Honey" (remix).) OmegaWikipedia 05:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view by Mel Etitis[edit]

(I didn't want to add this to my response, because people had already signed that.)

A number of editors have referred to the dreadful fact that I reverted with no attempt to explain my position, or to engage in discussion with those whose edits I reverted. It may be dreadful, but it's not a fact. This business has been rolling on for at least three months, during which time I have not only raised the issues via RfCs on articles and appeals to other admins (via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) to look at the situation and help to resolve it, but spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explain the issues and to reason with those who were persistently reverting my edits wholesale. The following are examples (not an exhaustive record) of my attempts with just two of those involved:

  • Winnermario (with interjections from OmegaWikipedia): [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], etc.
  • OmegaWikipedia (with interjections from DrippingInk, and with some warnings as well as explanations, as OmegaWikipedia has been by far the worst and most persistent offender, if not as hysterical as Anittas or even Winnermario): [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], etc.

If those who are (often with expressions of regret) now condemning me had responded to my appeals for help over the last few months, things wouldn't have reached this state. Instead I found myself almost completely ignored by other admins and experienced editors (with some notable exceptions), virtually single-handedly trying to bring Wikipedia conventions, guidelines, and policy to a large number of articles that were aggressively defended against change by a small group of editors who claimed ownership.

I should add that I had stopped reverting before this RfC was brought, in an attempt to cool things down and make discussion more likely (despite my earlier experiences); the result has been that the handful of editors involved have gleefully reverted all the articles, and have made no effort to discuss the issues. (See [131].) In their minds they've clearly won. If they have, then Wikipedia, not I, has lost. --Mel Etitis (??? ??????) 11:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

endorsement

  1. Don't know whether this one has an endorsement section, anyway I started one --Francis Schonken 18:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Doc (?) 23:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Edit wars are harmful, but Mel has been pretty transparent about what he doing (unlike some others) and has acted in good faith. He has tried to broaden the dispute out by involving others - it's just a pity no-one responded to the plea.[reply]
  4. FeloniousMonk 02:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC) per Doc[reply]
  5. Guettarda 05:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Monicasdude 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Duk 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Volatile 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Calton | Talk 02:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Don Diego 12:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by FuriousFreddy[edit]

I've had a front-row seat to this whole thing, and it is my strong conviction that this RFC was not a good idea. The primary reason for this are the responses and reactions of some of the disgruntled editor, upset that someone was attempting to make them follow the rules. True, breaking the 3RR was a mistake, but, at the same time, ME got next-to-no backup from the other administrators. That doesn't excuse it or allow it, but it helps to explain it.

The pop music section of the Wikipedia has become something akin to a hidden hell over the past year, dominated by editors who feel that their work shouldn't be changed simply because it is their work. A lot of them are presumptive and jumpy (I presume, perhaps incorrectly, many of them to be young people), but the bulk of them do not understand many of the basic rules and general operations procedures of the Wikipedia. Mel is not the only one who's had to deal with the stress: I've "almost" hung it up and quit several times myself because of the same problem. I've spoken with one of the editors in question, OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs), extensively; the conversations went from cordial to arguments, and eventually resolved themselves in an AIM discussion (at two a clock in the morning on a workday, yet). Just from talking with him, I understand that the other editors' aren't making their edits out of spite; they simply don't understand the principles of Wikipedia in general. That doesn't make them bad people; it makes them uninformed. They seem to have just happened upon the site and decided to form rules of their own, since (for a long time) no one did anything about it. These editors are accusing Mel of "istreating" them and of holding some sorts of personal vendettas against them. Neither is true; he was only acting against their actions, and not their characters in general.

One thin I don't understand is the lack of attention from many other moderators in trying to push this (an entire section of the encyclopedia, at least 1000 articles in number) towards improvement, cleanup, and pruning. Is it intellectual bias towards something "trivial" like pop music? Yes, while there are far more important subjects to write about, it doesn't look good to have hundreds of poorly written, bloated, biased articles that go against the very spirit of Wikipedia with absolutely nothing being done, save the actions of one person, by the administration of the website.

Mel dedicated himself to cleaning up a lot of the pop music articles, in a (perhaps fruitless) attempt to keep Wikipedia from devolving into the free fansite hosting service it inches towards every day. In a situation like that, it is obvious that stress can get to a person. However, the only evidence of an "attack" is quite shaky (Mel's comment to DrippingInk hardly reads as an attack; he seems to generally think that English is not DrippingInk's primary language. If it is, then I'm sure he didn't mean to insult anyone).

Basically, an RfC was obviously not the right way to resolve this. A group arbitration of some time (which still needs to be done) would have been a better option. Hopefully, instead of trying to punish someone who was trying to better Wikipedia, perhaps this RfC can draw attention to a serious problem with the project. As it stands now, the editors in question are winning because of (a) strength in numbers and (b) disinterest in the rest of the Wikipedian community in trying to deal with the issue.

As far as the reversions are concerned, numeral formatting and infobox arrangement are hardly things to start edit wars over, but it seems that is what happened, because a compromise seemed unlikely (the editors wanted their prose to stay the way they wanted it, and Mel seems to be an affecinado of properly formatted English). As a college professor, I would trust Mel's opinion on how to format text before I'd trust my own, but at the same time, I think maybe he should just let that one go. Although the way he's been formatting things is technically correct, you can't fight stubbornness with stubbornness. And that, really, is the only thing I think Mel has done wrong; he's let it get to the point where he had to be stubborn in order to do what needed to be done. However, it seems the only other thing to do that remained perfectly in line with policy (since requesting outside help didn't work) was to leave it alone, which also solves nothing.

So, here we are. This is one of those odd situations where someone did something wrong trying to correct worse wrongs. However, I think an RfC against Mel is an extreme reaction, especially when there are others who should (and, in some cases, would) have had RfC's filed against them. Anything beyond a warning would add to the extremity of this situation. In the case that Mel loses his admin powers or is banned, the general quality and verifiability of Wikipedia is going to degrade slowly. Mel's statement here, If they have, then Wikipedia, not I, has lost, speaks volumes of truth.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jkelly 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I have one issue with Fred's comments: Many of the members involved have been here for as many as five months. They should have looked over the rules and guidelines at least once in all that time! In all earnestness, they should have looked over them before they began editing! Anyway, just my take on that. This RfC is completely unfounded in my opinion and questions the entire validity of WikiPedia itself. Volatile 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Like Volatile, I endorse these comments with reservations in Mel's favor. The conduct of the editors involved in the disputes with him is, in general, not conduct which will be modified by the course(s) of action the proponents of this RfC would prefer Mel follow. One of those editors, for example, responds to other editors' changes with messages like this: "I don't want to get into a revert war, but any superior additions of mine that are reverted will be changed back. It seems to me you're just getting sore because your efforts were improved upon" (and that is a relatively mild example). Fred's comments about the degeneration of the pop music component of Wikipedia are extremely well taken, and this RfC, which should not have been brought against the person whose misconduct, if any, was less serious by several orders of magnitude that the misconduct of the editors whose actions he disputed, appears likely to fuel the degeneration. Monicasdude 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Well said, clearly analysed, gets to the bottom of this mess. Guettarda 22:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Extraordinary Machine 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Chelseaboy[edit]

I salute Mel Etitis for his prodigious edit count and his passionate dedication to Wikipedia. However, I question whether he has the right temperament to be an administrator at this time. I think I have only come across him here. In that context, under the heading "Article Title", he was gently challenged for "a mild, but pretty clear cut instance, of admining in a dispute one is a party to. Surely preferable to have put up a protection request, like the rest of us mere mortals. Alai 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)". Despite frequent contributions to the page at that time, he did not respond to that criticism, which seems to have been well founded. On the same page, there was discussion about whether "public school" was used in Scotland in the same way that it is understood in England. All the Scottish contributors seemed to agree that it was not; Mel Etitis (and others, but Mel Etitis was particularly dismissive) disagreed. He asked for references, which were provided (including some by me). But Mel Etitis would never accept the validity of the contributions of the other editors on the point. He described the suggestion that there was a different Scottish understanding of the term as "insulting to the Scots". He somewhat bizarrely insisted that the Talk page contributions of Scottish users on how the term is used in Scotland amounted to "original research [which] doesn't have any weight here". When he was then referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary to the same effect, he ignored the reference. Lower down on the Talk page (under the heading "Scottish "Public Schools": state schools"), references in support of the different Scottish usage were produced from the Oxford English Dictionary, from the use of the word inscribed in stone on public buildings, from the Education Act for Scotland of 1872, from a Scottish Executive Education Department press release in 2002 and from a Scottish Executive consultation document in 2005. Mel Etitis dismissed all of this as "little more than "I'm Scottish and I'm telling you" which did nothing to advance the discussion. On 27 September 2005 he escalated the matter by slapping an offensive "factual accuracy disputed" template on the whole article (which I removed): this was a slur on the work of many editors (see the "Disputed" heading on the talk page referenced above). I believe that he raised the temperature, personalised the discussion and dismissed the useful and constructive contributions of others in a manner which did not help the improvement of the article. His status as administrator sent a bad message about Wikipedia to someone like myself who is relatively new to it. I was very troubled by the whole episode and it taught me a lot about how Wikipedia should not work. Chelseaboy 21:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mel_Etitis&oldid=1086092694"