For reference purposes, I've blocked Mel for 3RR violation on Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song). Ral 315 WS 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I was about to remove the Vfd but Anittas beat me to it. That is not the way to deal with this Rfc, SqueakBox 18:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Jkelly writes in his outside view: "I suggest that this RfC discourages editors from imposing standards upon an article in the face of belligerance."
Why yes, it does!
Wikipedia doesn't impose standards in the face of belligerence. Wikipedia develops standards by consensus. On Since U Been Gone, Mel Etitis helped to turn a minor dispute over the format of a chart into an edit war. If Mel Etitis were not an administrator, I'd say the same thing: we do not do things this way on Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
And what was the reason for him to remove images from articles? Or additional boxes? Again, you're trying to disprove this RfC by involving me in this matter. It doesn't work that way. Mel never made an attempt to compromise with anyone. He just reverted things, in his own totalitarian way. -- Anittas 00:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
What else should I call it? The guy refuses to compromise. He's very firm in his actions and always finds a good reason to justify his acts - no matter what. He is the ultimate axiom. He is God. -- Anittas 01:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I agree about Anittas. But this case is about Mel Etitis, and nothing that Anittas has done can possibly explain what Mel has done. And FeloniousMonk, I'm surprised to see you falsely describing my statement as "pure hyperbole." Have you read my outside view in which I cite the arbitration committee as saying that edit warring "is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors" and censures one of its own number for that very thing? The evidence shows that Mel Etitis has engaged in egregious edit warring, damaging the wiki, the morale of all editors, and the reputation of all Wikipedia administrators. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 07:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Monk, you don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't know Mel until he came to my talk-page and started to insult me. Then he followed up by picking on my article, Battle of Vaslui, which he reverted hundreds of times. One of the reason for reverting is that the name "Suleiman", as he argued it, was far more popular in English than the name "Suleyman". That means I wasn't wrong in using the version of "Suleyman", but that he thought it would be more appropriate to use his own version of the name. While doing so, he wikified the name to two different persons, until I told him it was all wrong.
Give me a break. Are you going to blame everything on me now? And what is this about his great contributions to Wiki? Is that what we're discussing here? Are we comparing one user to another? No one came here for a popularity contest. You try to imply that he should have better credibility than me, because he contributed more. You are biased, Monk, and you don't even bother to find out what actually happened. You shouldn't judge. -- Anittas 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"I thought that you'd agreed that your English wasn't really up to copy-editing..."
Mel to PM Poon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PM_Poon
"To me, wikipedia is meant for me as a favourite pastime, not for such long-term conflicts. Mel himself has exhibited a great deal of contradictions against my own ideas. This has caused emotional stress, deprovement of my school work and peer pressure."
Mr Tan - about Mel
He also insulted me and many others. He is a vandal and an abuser, and so are you, SlimVirgin. I see you now start reverting my edits on Brodnici, without even knowing why. You and Mel's clique will not make any of us submit to you. I'll rather be banned from this site than submitting to a bunch of self-righteous 'people'! -- Anittas 16:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Republic of Moldova would be wrong. I understood Mr Tan perfectly well. Even if his English is not to your standard, he doesn't deserve to be treated like crap. But that's what evil people do: they treat others like crap. You made him feel bad and he no longer contributes to Wiki - all because of Mel. And you say I insult people? You hypocrite! You should be proud of your professor. -- Anittas 16:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
In significant parts of the entire affaire, it is a sad farce. If someone is repeatedly changing the numerical value of or the speed of light, and I'm reverting, I'd certainly hope not to be dragged to RfC or blocked for 3RR violation. But here someone is repeatedly [4], [5], [6] changing to a version which suggests U.S. and International are antonyms and Mel tries to undo this. So, what's the open question here? -- Pjacobi 15:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
This is what Monica said: "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)"
If you're talking about me, then you're wrong. I was asked (not ordered) to remove my insults towards Mel. As a sign of good-will, I did just that. I removed some of my insults and said that I was prepared to make peace. Mel did not respond to any of that. That's what happened. -- Anittas 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, I reverted Mel's message on my talk-page because I asked him to leave me alone. After I reverted his comments on my OWN private talk-page, he reverted it back. He reverted my own talk-page. I told several people about this, including Bmicomp, who said that Mel shouldn't have reverted my talk-page, but that I should also stop insulting him, etc.
So when it comes to the bone, I have the right to revert my own talk-page, whereas Mel doesn't have the right to revert my own talk-page. Mel was wrong. Thanks for remind me about that, Monk. Much appreciated! -- Anittas 17:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
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. [143] 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)
BRAVO! Down with the devil! Bravo! -- Anittas 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
People, I was just pasting what DrippingInk posted in his RfC vote. My comment was below his post. It seems that it doesn't matter what Mel does to us. He could kill us all, in our beds, and you people would still not care.
Virgin, stop crying about grammar! No one stopps Mel from fixing our grammar! Get that in your head! -- Anittas 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I have read this talk page. It contains very serious breaches of civility by Annitas and Drippinglnk that amount to personal attacks on Mel Etitis. I don't know what the history is behind their condemnations of Mel, but civility is still required.
I agree with Kelly Martin that Mel should have used dispute resolution rather than engaging in revert wars. However, I can also see that he was being harassed. One can criticize the behavior of an editor who is being harassed, but one must also understand that this behavior appears to have been provoked.
Having read previous ArbCom rulings, it appears likely that, if this case cannot be resolved and goes to the ArbCom, Mel will be admonished, or have a 2RR limit imposed, and Annitas and Drippinglnk may be banned for a period of time for personal attacks. For that reason, I caution them to moderate their own behavior and to try to resolve this case without arbitration. Robert McClenon 18:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It's Anittas. And Mel started first to harass us. He followed me in my edits. He insulted me. He did so to many other people, too. Just read the testimonials of others; please! -- Anittas 18:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just placed my outside view on top of Mel's inside view. I'm not sure if the views should be sorted out by the type of view or by the order in which it was created. If I made a mistake, please correct it. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 19:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobi ( talk • contribs) October 10, 2005, 15:42 (UTC)
User:Zephram Stark has pointed out the following (this can also be found on the endorsement/vote page):
If this is the case (as it appears to be), then why does Mel find it acceptable to remove information from several articles when its sources are not cited? Or nominate an article for deletion because its sources are not cited when his sources are not cited on the articles he works on. This is clearly unacceptable. Winnermario 21:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Where does it say that MoS is enforceable? I want to see this. -- Anittas 21:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
For reference purposes, I've blocked Mel for 3RR violation on Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song). Ral 315 WS 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I was about to remove the Vfd but Anittas beat me to it. That is not the way to deal with this Rfc, SqueakBox 18:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Jkelly writes in his outside view: "I suggest that this RfC discourages editors from imposing standards upon an article in the face of belligerance."
Why yes, it does!
Wikipedia doesn't impose standards in the face of belligerence. Wikipedia develops standards by consensus. On Since U Been Gone, Mel Etitis helped to turn a minor dispute over the format of a chart into an edit war. If Mel Etitis were not an administrator, I'd say the same thing: we do not do things this way on Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
And what was the reason for him to remove images from articles? Or additional boxes? Again, you're trying to disprove this RfC by involving me in this matter. It doesn't work that way. Mel never made an attempt to compromise with anyone. He just reverted things, in his own totalitarian way. -- Anittas 00:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
What else should I call it? The guy refuses to compromise. He's very firm in his actions and always finds a good reason to justify his acts - no matter what. He is the ultimate axiom. He is God. -- Anittas 01:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I agree about Anittas. But this case is about Mel Etitis, and nothing that Anittas has done can possibly explain what Mel has done. And FeloniousMonk, I'm surprised to see you falsely describing my statement as "pure hyperbole." Have you read my outside view in which I cite the arbitration committee as saying that edit warring "is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors" and censures one of its own number for that very thing? The evidence shows that Mel Etitis has engaged in egregious edit warring, damaging the wiki, the morale of all editors, and the reputation of all Wikipedia administrators. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 07:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Monk, you don't even know what you're talking about. I didn't know Mel until he came to my talk-page and started to insult me. Then he followed up by picking on my article, Battle of Vaslui, which he reverted hundreds of times. One of the reason for reverting is that the name "Suleiman", as he argued it, was far more popular in English than the name "Suleyman". That means I wasn't wrong in using the version of "Suleyman", but that he thought it would be more appropriate to use his own version of the name. While doing so, he wikified the name to two different persons, until I told him it was all wrong.
Give me a break. Are you going to blame everything on me now? And what is this about his great contributions to Wiki? Is that what we're discussing here? Are we comparing one user to another? No one came here for a popularity contest. You try to imply that he should have better credibility than me, because he contributed more. You are biased, Monk, and you don't even bother to find out what actually happened. You shouldn't judge. -- Anittas 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"I thought that you'd agreed that your English wasn't really up to copy-editing..."
Mel to PM Poon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PM_Poon
"To me, wikipedia is meant for me as a favourite pastime, not for such long-term conflicts. Mel himself has exhibited a great deal of contradictions against my own ideas. This has caused emotional stress, deprovement of my school work and peer pressure."
Mr Tan - about Mel
He also insulted me and many others. He is a vandal and an abuser, and so are you, SlimVirgin. I see you now start reverting my edits on Brodnici, without even knowing why. You and Mel's clique will not make any of us submit to you. I'll rather be banned from this site than submitting to a bunch of self-righteous 'people'! -- Anittas 16:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Republic of Moldova would be wrong. I understood Mr Tan perfectly well. Even if his English is not to your standard, he doesn't deserve to be treated like crap. But that's what evil people do: they treat others like crap. You made him feel bad and he no longer contributes to Wiki - all because of Mel. And you say I insult people? You hypocrite! You should be proud of your professor. -- Anittas 16:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
In significant parts of the entire affaire, it is a sad farce. If someone is repeatedly changing the numerical value of or the speed of light, and I'm reverting, I'd certainly hope not to be dragged to RfC or blocked for 3RR violation. But here someone is repeatedly [4], [5], [6] changing to a version which suggests U.S. and International are antonyms and Mel tries to undo this. So, what's the open question here? -- Pjacobi 15:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
This is what Monica said: "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)"
If you're talking about me, then you're wrong. I was asked (not ordered) to remove my insults towards Mel. As a sign of good-will, I did just that. I removed some of my insults and said that I was prepared to make peace. Mel did not respond to any of that. That's what happened. -- Anittas 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me about that. Yes, I reverted Mel's message on my talk-page because I asked him to leave me alone. After I reverted his comments on my OWN private talk-page, he reverted it back. He reverted my own talk-page. I told several people about this, including Bmicomp, who said that Mel shouldn't have reverted my talk-page, but that I should also stop insulting him, etc.
So when it comes to the bone, I have the right to revert my own talk-page, whereas Mel doesn't have the right to revert my own talk-page. Mel was wrong. Thanks for remind me about that, Monk. Much appreciated! -- Anittas 17:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
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. [143] 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)
BRAVO! Down with the devil! Bravo! -- Anittas 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
People, I was just pasting what DrippingInk posted in his RfC vote. My comment was below his post. It seems that it doesn't matter what Mel does to us. He could kill us all, in our beds, and you people would still not care.
Virgin, stop crying about grammar! No one stopps Mel from fixing our grammar! Get that in your head! -- Anittas 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I have read this talk page. It contains very serious breaches of civility by Annitas and Drippinglnk that amount to personal attacks on Mel Etitis. I don't know what the history is behind their condemnations of Mel, but civility is still required.
I agree with Kelly Martin that Mel should have used dispute resolution rather than engaging in revert wars. However, I can also see that he was being harassed. One can criticize the behavior of an editor who is being harassed, but one must also understand that this behavior appears to have been provoked.
Having read previous ArbCom rulings, it appears likely that, if this case cannot be resolved and goes to the ArbCom, Mel will be admonished, or have a 2RR limit imposed, and Annitas and Drippinglnk may be banned for a period of time for personal attacks. For that reason, I caution them to moderate their own behavior and to try to resolve this case without arbitration. Robert McClenon 18:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
It's Anittas. And Mel started first to harass us. He followed me in my edits. He insulted me. He did so to many other people, too. Just read the testimonials of others; please! -- Anittas 18:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just placed my outside view on top of Mel's inside view. I'm not sure if the views should be sorted out by the type of view or by the order in which it was created. If I made a mistake, please correct it. Thanks OmegaWikipedia 19:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobi ( talk • contribs) October 10, 2005, 15:42 (UTC)
User:Zephram Stark has pointed out the following (this can also be found on the endorsement/vote page):
If this is the case (as it appears to be), then why does Mel find it acceptable to remove information from several articles when its sources are not cited? Or nominate an article for deletion because its sources are not cited when his sources are not cited on the articles he works on. This is clearly unacceptable. Winnermario 21:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Where does it say that MoS is enforceable? I want to see this. -- Anittas 21:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)