Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Ettis

'This RfC was withdrawn on March 25, 2006 (UTC) by the requestors. For the rationale on the withdrawal, see. '

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: 12:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * User:Mel_Etitis

Origins of this RfC
This RfC was actually originated by me in this edit. I wanted to file it myself and already wrote a respective article and saved it on my hard drive (I can provide it if somebody desire), but our dispute went in unexpected way while I was offline, and Mademoiselle Sabina was first to file her version (which I support too), which is presented below. Thereby I think, that Mademoiselle Sabina isn't responsible for filing the RfC by any means. Cmapm 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Statement of the dispute
User has leveled numerous personal attacks against another editor, in spite of repeated requests to cease fighting. He has also created an attack userpage to further his argument.

Origins of this RfC
This RfC was actually originated by me in this edit. I wanted to file it myself and already wrote a respective article and saved it on my hard drive (I can provide it if somebody desire), but our dispute went in unexpected way while I was offline, and Mademoiselle Sabina was first to file her version (which I support too), which is presented below. Thereby I think, that Mademoiselle Sabina isn't responsible for filing the RfC by any means. Cmapm 10:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Description
Mel Ettis copyedited a Wikipedia article (Tasha Schwikert), changing a factual and correct term to an inappropriate one. Mademoiselle Sabina changed the disputed term to a neutral word, and left a comment in the edit summary box. ME came to Sabina's Talk Page and left a comment arguing about the edit. Sabina explained her position on ME's talk page and requested that the discussion end there. ME responded by leaving a string of messages on Sabina's talk page accusing her of leveling personal attacks, being "unpleasant" and "hostile" and telling her to "hold her temper". The comments were left in a thread that Sabina was discussing with Cmapm that had nothing to do with the disputed edit. Sabina did refer to ME as "condescending" but only after several failed attempts to stop the fight. In spite of repeated requests from Sabina and Cmapm   to cease the comments, ME continued to leave messages. He then created a separate userpage called Mel Ettis/Mademoiselle Sabina for the sole purpose of outlining his side of the dispute and accusing Sabina of hostility and personal attacks. Sabina attempted to comment on the Talk Page to outline her side of the story; ME subsequently deleted her remarks. 

Originally this dispute was only listed in the Wikiquette alerts. However, Mademoiselle Sabina feels that with the creation of the attack userpage, this dispute has escalated to a more serious level. She has also requested speedy deletion of the attack page.

From Mademoiselle Sabina 03:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC) : My reason for raising an RFC is not on the basis of the original remark about the edit. I do feel that ME's stance there was ludicrious, because he ignored both the Manual of Style and the reference materials that were cited to prove the edit was correct. However, it should be noted that a neutral third word was used in the final article edit.

The reason for the complaint is because ME chose to keep up the argument, even after repeated requests to stop. If you look at the archive history, he left me two messages, accusing me of being "unpleasant" and starting personal attacks and telling me to "hold my temper". One of these messages was left in a thread that did not even concern him, but was a conversation with another editor. He assumed that the comment I was making in the thread was about him; I did not name him or offer any identifying information that could be considered hostile. If you will look at my comments, for the most part, I kept to the edit discussion. At one point I basically gave up and said "well, if you are not going to listen, let's drop the matter now." ME continued leaving messages about my supposed hostility.

I also must wonder what ME is trying to prove by creating a completely separate user account for the sole purpose of proving his point. Every other page on Wikipedia is open to edits and commentary; this particular page is sacred from all comments. I can therefore only assume that ME has set this up as attack page for the sole purpose of continuing the hostility. I was not overly friendly to ME, however, never did I descend to his level of name-calling and accusations.

This is not a newbie. This is an administrator, who is supposed to uphold the Manual of Style and other guidelines. I believe his behavior to be completely unacceptable.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * 1) User:Mel_Etitis/Mademoiselle_Sabina - Attack userpage created solely to accuse MS of levelling personal attacks. Only Talk Page is active.
 * 2) User_talk:Mademoiselle_Sabina - ME's long string of personal attack comments.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Creation of attack page
 * Personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * User_talk:Mel_Etitis - Mademoiselle Sabina and Cmapm's original comments, asking ME to stop dispute.
 * User_talk:Mademoiselle_Sabina The original thread on MS's talk page, in which she reiterates her request to stop the dispute.
 * User_talk:Mademoiselle_Sabina More requests from Mademoiselle Sabina and Cmapm to stop the dispute.

Evidence that this was resolved
(Partial on evidence, more refs could be added, but links from available in the below are the listed thread on user_talk: Tony Sidaway.)You will find a Summary Post above and Below this heading, and links (above it) to other talk showing that:

This matter was withdraw by consent and by the request of Mademoiselle Sabina and Cmapm after I mediated with them LAST WEEKEND.

I'd left the matter with Tony Sidaway per the above link, w/o posting here myself, but as I'd annoted the current document at that same time on 'cleaned' page, with   and explaination.

That was reverted, apparently w/o checking the link I left to user talk: Tony Sidaways, nor myself.


 * As posting has continued today, let me add that a better compromise word suitable to all dialectical ears speaking whatever variety of English has been proposed as a compromise, removing the original cause of contention as well. That happy outcome happened several days (the 22nd) after they wanted to stop this RFC.  Fra nkB  20:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Mademoiselle Sabina 12:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmapm 23:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

(sign with ~ )

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.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

As neither of the people involved let me know about this RfC, I've only just discovered it, thanks to another editor's message to me. What is there to say? I'm not usually keen on editors who refuse to respond, but this is such a ludicrous case that I'm sorely tempted. I defy anyone to find a personal attack in what I said, or to say with any honesty that the aggression and hostility stemmed from anyone but Mademoiselle Sabina (the flames now unkindly fanned by Cmapm). The RfC is not only unsupported by any evidence, but ridiculously premature even if there'd been a genuine case. (Oh, and the designation of User talk:Mel Etitis/Mademoiselle Sabina, which I created to make it easier to show another editor what had actually happened without cluttering up Talk pages, as an "attack page" is peculiar to say the least.)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) WAS 4.250 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC) This is a ridiculous misunderstanding all around.
 * 3) Jkelly 20:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) AnnH ♫ 22:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary 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" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

I find nothing in Mel's comments improper. To call his first post argumentative is patently absurd -- he discussed the grammer concerns noted by Mademoiselle Sabina and even mentioned that her change was "fine". Perhaps this is just a case of thin skin on someone's part, but the community is steeped in discussion and concensus and editors here need to be able to do that without fear of being brought up for a spurious RfC. Mademoiselle Sabina's further action in listing a User page for deletion because Mel would not allow her to comment in the version of events he was creating is troubling.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. Jkelly 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree, I think Mel has handled the situation well. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Mel seems to have handled it well. None of it looks like personal attacks from Mel nor do the other comments I looked at.  There should not have been an RfC based on this.  --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Per the above. I suggest this be closed. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) AnnH ♫ 22:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Utterly daft RfC. --ajn (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Collecting materials for an RfC on a private subpage is perfectly normal. Septentrionalis 17:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
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.

Withdrawal
Two requestors, Cmapm and Mademoiselle Sabina (see this her edit, where she approves it) withdraw this RfC for the following reasons:
 * We recognize that the dispute over the edit/comments is not likely to be solved, but that the RfC was not the appropriate forum in which to air our complaint.
 * We've devised a plan to avoid future conflicts with the editor named in the RfC and would like to put the matter behind us. Cmapm 02:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)