Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis

message: For reference purposes, I've blocked Mel for 3RR violation on Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song).  Ral315 WS 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And he's since been unblocked by FeloniousMonk.  Ral315 WS 16:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

message: In significant parts of the entire affaire, it is a sad farce. If someone is repeatedly changing the numerical value of \pi 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 , ,  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)
thread_title:  Farce 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's blantantly false. Here's an example of you doing just what Monicasdude alleges: . I can find other examples I'm certain as well. FeloniousMonk 16:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page editing 

message: 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)
replies: text: "Down with the devil"?  This is becoming quite ridiculous. If your goal was merely to attack Mel Etitis, you have succeeded, but if it was to convince people you have been wronged by him, you have failed. Gamaliel 17:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mel was correct in changing the section header as described above; the Manual of Style clearly calls for that form of capitalization.  While I disapprove of Mel's tactics, his intentions were correct.  Mel should have given you a clearer link to the Manual of Style and been more clear about the reasons for the change, and (if you had continued to resist after that clear explanation), brought your recividism to the attention of the community.   That said, Mel's ill-advised conduct in no way excuses your rudeness.  At this point, I suspect that, should your attitude not change, you will likely find yourself permanently banned from Wikipedia.  You may wish to consider whether maintaining a vendetta against another editor is in your interest.  Kelly Martin 17:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it just me, or do DrippingInk and Anittas sound quite similar? There's a discussion on the mailing list at the moment about the importance of articles being well-written. The quality of writing is often overlooked, with NPOV and NOR coming first for many people, but badly written articles make us look silly, and they won't be read or respected, no matter how neutral and accurate they are. Mel cares about good English, and he's right to do so. Annitas and Dripping Ink have shown their true colors. Having a discussion with someone like that is clearly impossible, and an RfC would be a waste of time. Reverting is sometimes the only option. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, revert warring is NEVER an option.  If an editor is unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policies after an attempt at discussion, then that editor should be banned from Wikipedia.  By revert warring them endlessly, you have substituted your judgement for that of the community.  It's the lack of appropriate attempts to involve the community in this issue that bothers me more than anything else.   We have RfC (and RfAr, when it fails) for that purpose, and it's not been used here to any significant degree.  Kelly Martin 18:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. It's unhelpful to strike up extreme positions about anything on Wikipedia, reverting included. It's usually not a good thing, but sometimes there's no reasonable option. Why should good editors have to go through RfCs and RfArs to deal with people who keep reverting to spelling mistakes? I agree we should be able to block editors who won't follow our policies, but admins can't do that, unless the account has made no useful edits. An RfC doesn't get you closer to a block or ban, and there's a big arbcom backlog. Sometimes reverting is the only practical option on the ground. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But he'd do it in impeccable English. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What is WRONG with you people? Do you not see that Mel Etitis basically insulted DrippingInk to the point where he broke down? And you're excusing him of attacking him when Mel Etitis CLEARLY attacked DrippingInk by saying he did not speak English as a first language because he was unfamiliar with the MoS? This part of the discussion proves one-hundred percent to me that you are only backing Mel Etitis up because he has very good English. Yes, it is. RfCs should be filed against all of you for your DISGUSTING oppositon which is clearly UNACCEPTABLE! I have never seen such foolish behaviour since one of my freinds lit one of my neighbour's backyard trees on fire. We are all mortal, but you people most definitely push it against our will. --Winnermario 21:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  One More Take 

message: 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)
thread_title: Inside Vs Outside view

message: Where does it say that MoS is enforceable? I want to see this. --Anittas 21:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoS