Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis 2

In order to remain listed at 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: 16:07, April 15, 2006, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Mel Etitis | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute
''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
has been involved in disputes over link spam in talk pages. He claims that spam in talk pages do not violate the spam policy. He has reverted RC Patroller's rollback's to repost the spam again. This has happened on atleast 70 talk pages.

In several instances, Mel Etitis has claimed that contrary to Our Guidelines don't say that links should only be placed on a certain number of Talk pages, nor that links should meet some quality standard.

In fact other admin have clearly aggreed that the links were spam and asked him why he would allow it. He responded as he did before claiming there was nothing against asking for links to be listed on talk pages even though they are spam.

The rules against spam are not only to keep the links off of our articles but off talk pages as well, wikipedia is explicitly not to be used for advertisement,

Mel Etitis states on User_talk:Jameswatt "Why does it bother you that his site is benefitted by these links? We're not policemen, we're admins trying to protect Wikiepdia — and the links on Talk pages are doing no harm to Wikipedia. The site is clearly worthless, being grossly, not to say childishly, inaccurate, but then the links won't be added. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)"

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Users contributions
 * 


 * Spam removed again by a anon after it was reposted by Mel
 * 

Applicable policies

 * Revert - "Edit wars considered harmful"
 * Spam - "Spam not allowed"
 * External_links - "External link did not meet substantive longevity"

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jameswatt

Evidence of continued behavior after attemps to resolve dispute

 * - Dispute over spam
 * edits by Sgrayban (talk) to last version by Mel Etitis)
 * (Suggested link)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Scott Grayban 00:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Response
''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.'' ''

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside views
''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.''