Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis

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)


 * And he's since been unblocked by FeloniousMonk.  Ral  315   WS  16:26, 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)
 * The VfD was made by an anonymous user, 172.142.126.12. I voted speedy keep and it appears to have since been removed from the log page. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. It's still there. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Imposing standards
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)


 * If this RfC were happening in a context-less vacuum, I would, at this point, simply express my unconditional agreement with you. But, as Gamaliel mentioned before me, and as I tried to make explicit, there is a context to this dispute.  Not to belabour the point, but the conduct of only one the parties involved has been called into question, which suggests to me that either I am missing some even larger context, or that Anittas' lack of regret (see here) is entirely appropriate, as that user's behaviour is precisely the way in which one can get one's preferred results.
 * Putting together a third-party RfC, which does not happen in every edit war, or blocking a user two days later for a breach of 3RR, are, even if they were strictly in line with policy, unusual steps to take. My comment was to indicate that I also found them to be unconstructive ones.  I simply hope that this does not become a routine for good-faith editors who impose NPOV, source citation and Manual of Style after other editors demonstrate their disregard for those policies. Jkelly 00:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This RFC was not filed because any of the editors Mel was reverting complained. It was filed because I saw Mel engaging in conduct that appeared to me to be edit warring.  I asked User:Bmicomp, another admin whose judgment I trust, to look into it, and, if he felt Mel's conduct justified it, to file an RfC.  He did look into it, reported to me that he felt that the conduct deserved an RfC, found a third admin to certify the complaint, and filed it.  To the best of my knowledge, I was never contacted by any of the users that Mel's reverted until after this RfC was filed.  Kelly Martin 03:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I must correct myself. This started because User:BGC complained to me in email that he had been unfairly blocked by User:Jtkiefer.  I asked Jtkiefer to look into this.  He had blocked BGC for a 3RR violation reported by Mel.  On investigation he concluded (and asked me to verify) that BGC had not, in fact, violated 3RR and unblocked him.  A brief review of the the history of the relevant article made it crystal clear that Mel was engaged in a long-running edit war with BGC.  Further investigation on my part evidenced that Mel was using one-click rollback for reverting edits that were not vandalism, and was engaged in low-speed edit wars with multiple other editors as well, apparently over MoS-related issues.  That's what prompted me to push for an investigation.  A review of edit histories shows that BGC and Mel are still edit warring.  While Mel's edits appear to be reasonable, the fact that there's an ongoing edit war without any evidence of even an attempt by Mel to use dispute resolution is very disquieting, especially since he's continued to edit war after this RfC was opened.  For example, in the case with BGC, even though he has reverted BGC on M.I.U. Album at least 11 times in the past month, only left one message on BGC's talk page on September 25th telling him to "stop reverting against the MoS" (but did not link the MoS or explain how the edits were, in fact, against the MoS), and I can't find any evidence that he's made any effort elsewhere to bring anyone's attention at all to BGC's conduct.  BGC needs to stop edit warring too, and I think he should be the subject of an RfC of his own, but BGC's misconduct in absolutely no way excuses Mel's.


 * I'd rather not have to dissect each of Mel's interactions with the users he's reverting, because doing so is very time-consuming for me and I have many better things to do for Wikipedia than continue to spend time producing even more proof that Mel is, in fact, edit warring to the grave harm of Wikipedia. But if I have to, I will.  Mel, please stop.  Kelly Martin 06:47, 9 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)


 * "Totalitarian"? Please. Gamaliel 00:53, 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)


 * Your objections smack of rank hypocrisy. If you'd compromised, Mel wouldn't be here for you to pummel (which is exactly as I predicted at WP:AN/I, BTW). You've been cautioned against namecalling and badgering in this incident on a number of occasions by a number of adminstrators. Knowing your history, I'm not suprised to see it continuing here, but perhaps of all places this is the most appropriate, since you're demonstrating far better than I would have what sort of editors Mel's faced in his efforts. Facing opposition like this, who could blame Mel? FeloniousMonk 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, Jkelly, it is true that the conduct of only one of the participants has been called into question. That participant is an administrator.  That participant, no less than any other editor, is expected to avoid damaging the wiki and the community.  As I note in my outside view today, the Arbitration Committee has recently reaffirmed the principle that Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors.  This isn't news, it's spelled out in Wikipedia official policy.  Administrators are chosen to uphold and defend the wiki, not to play revert warring over the manual of style. I hope that Mel Etitis will take from this RfC a warning that he must not continue to damage the wiki as he has done by his willing participation in numerous edit wars. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is more harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors: Those who like Anittas, chronically combative, prone to personal attack, and terminally territorial, resist any change to "their" article; or those who in tidying and conforming articles to the MOS, faced with this sort, resort to reverting their reverts, like Mel?


 * There's both a qualitative and quantitive difference in their contributions to the project... "Continue to damage the wiki"? Please. That's pure hyperbole. Mel's "damage to the wiki" is far outweighed by his contributions, and pales compared to those like Anittas who've managed to stymie his good efforts. This critique is glaringly one-sided. FeloniousMonk 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It goes both ways. Anittas has done many things wrong in his handling of the situation, there's no doubt.  But Mel handled the situation just as poorly.  I would expect an administrator and long-time editor to know better than to edit war like this.   Ral  315   WS  07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The proper response to editors who are "chronically combative, prone to personal attack, and terminally territorial" is to try to discuss the issue with them, and if unsuccessful to follow Wikipedia's established procedures for dispute resolution. It is not to edit war with them until they get fed up and quit.  Anittas should have been referred to RfC a long time ago.  Instead of a user who, had dispute resolution been engaged properly and promptly, might have been mentorable into a valuable contributor we now a bitter, jaded editor who will likely have to be banned by the ArbCom.  I cannot see how that helps Wikipedia.  Kelly Martin 07:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel followed convention, he brought this issue to WP:AN/I before it got out of hand. Some of us even tried to help him... FeloniousMonk 08:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Recruiting other like-minded admins to join in your edit war is not Wikipedia policy. Kelly Martin 15:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tidying and conforming articles to the MOS and having to repeatedly redo work undone by those who ignore both policy and guidelines hardly constitutes an "edit war." Furthermore, eactly how were "like-minded admins" assisting in this "edit war"? The actions of those few admins who bothered to respond to Mel's pleas were limited to cautioning blatantly abusive and disruptive editors. Now you can call that assisting in edit warring, but some of us call that being a responsible admin. FeloniousMonk 17:12, 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)


 * Perhaps a number of people here could consider carefully before making absolute or extreme statements or descriptions here, and "totalitarian" isn't the only one. Tony: nothing that Anittas has done can possibly explain what Mel has done: I believe that the kind of thing that Anittas has done can help to explain it. (I don't want to knock Anittas here, and am open to the suggestion that similar processes have worked in both directions, with Mel annoying Anittas.) I am an editor, and while I'd certainly agree that edit-warring is a waste of time, energy and server space, Mel (with whom I have had a few sharp disagreements in the fairly recent past) has not damaged my morale. Mel has been edit-warring; thanks to his admin status his reversions may have required fewer keystrokes than, say, Anittas's or mine, but I don't think that in this context he has used his administrator's abilities to do anything that Anittas and I (among others) haven't done or couldn't do. His edit-warring may have been wrong-headed (I'd tend to think that most of it wasn't but some of it was); if it was so it was no more egregious than that of several people, myself probably included. -- Hoary 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Tony, but I disagree. I just don't see it that way at all. And considering the true extent of the chronic vandalism, abuse of others and other actual, genuine impediments to creating an open encyclopedia, claiming "Mel Etitis has engaged in egregious edit warring, damaging the wiki, the morale of all editors, and the reputation of all Wikipedia administrators" is hyperbole by definition. It's clearly exaggeration used for emphasis. I judge Mel by the sum of his contributions... and we as admins should be so lucky to be judged by Mel Etitis' performance at wikipedia.


 * With all the abuse and shenanigans that goes on here, choosing this one instance by this one administrator strikes me as surreal. Mel's history by any measure is exemplary. He's been a widely respected, reliable and trustworthy contributor who's given generously of his time to the project. It stands in high relief to that of his gainsayers here. And in this case he followed widely accepted conventions in bringing the issues he was having with Anittas and others before it got out of hand to the attention of other Admins at WP:AN/I. That he was left to fend for himself is our failure, not his. And particularly those who did not respond and are seldom seen wielding a mop at WP:AN/I.


 * Expecting admins to run to RFC every time some nogoodnik chronically reverts their edits is unworkable: It only empowers the territorially defensive to use reversions to "protect" articles and it will create an appearance that admins are litigious, or worse, vexatious litigants. All of which only strengthens and emboldens those like Anittas, which are the real source of damage to Wikipedia and the morale of its editors. FeloniousMonk 08:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Whenever I try to focus on what Mel Etitis has done, you point at someone else who is doing something worse. But those people aren't administrators, and frankly, this is not a school playground, I presume that Mel Etitis is an adult and we don't accept "he started it first" as a valid excuse for adults.  That Mel Etitis didn't abuse his administrator powers doesn't excuse the fact that he has engaged in egregious edit warring.


 * You say "That he was left to fend for himself is our failure, not his." Well actually that is unbelievable.  He wasn't fending for himself, he was edit warring, an activity that he must know in his bones serves absolutely no useful purpose.


 * We have a dispute resolution process and he didn't use it. You say it would be unworkable for Mel Etitis to file a RfC for every revert he encounters, well yes, but Mel Etitis edit warred for weeks and months without it once occurring to him that perhaps he needed to do something more constructive about this. --Tony Sidaway Talk  08:47, 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)


 * Anittas... Please. We can read. Anyone reading your edit history (I suggest starting with 17 September) and your Talk page will find all they need to conclude that you're chronically disruptive and abusive. How many admins have cautioned you to settle your minor differences with Mel and not personally attack him? Six by my count. How many other editors did you contact to rally support for your campaign against an admin in good standing? It's all in your edit history. No one needs to know the specifics of the origin of your disputes to see that you're chronically combative, prone to personal attack, and terminally territorial. Prime examples being:, , . And the tone of your posts on this page stand in testament to the fact that you've neither learned nor improved from this experience. FeloniousMonk 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Anittas has made 435 edits, 207 to the encyclopedia. Mel has made 28,708 edits, 17,267 to the encyclopedia. Quantity apart, Mel's edits are invariably high quality. If all editors were like him, we'd have put the Encyclopedia Britannica and several others out of business long ago. What this means is that he should be supported when he's in difficulty. He did approach AN/I several times, as well as e-mailing individual editors, not trying to recruit people to back him up, as Anittas says, but asking for help. Almost no one responded, probably because of the type of articles the dispute was over. Those who did respond (myself included) didn't follow through as much as we could have: in my own case, that was because I couldn't bring myself to care about Mariah Carey. So Mel was left to deal with a group of very young, inexperienced editors who were inserting spelling mistakes and bad grammar into articles, as well as POV that would make your hair stand on end, and the type of writing that could have come straight from the record companies themselves (and possibly did). He should have been supported then, and he should be supported now. If some of us have issues with him, for example about reverting, these could be discussed in another forum, perhaps by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So what? He made 17,000 edits, half probably being reverting and insulting people. You and Monk are his mercenaries! I'm not competing with Mel. His contribution doesn't give him immunity. Justify this if you can:

"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)


 * I reverted one edit of yours because you turned a blue link into a red one. And that makes me a vandal and an abuser too? Your wish to be blocked indefinitely may come about sooner than you think if you keep this up. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost. The community matters too because without it there would be no Wikipedia, but the priority for all good editors is to see that the content is well-referenced, neutral, and well-written. Your purpose here should be to try to contribute to that, yet all you seem to want to do is cause trouble and insult people. It's interesting that you raise the example of Mr Tan, an extraordinarily difficult editor whose English was almost impossible to understand, yet Mel was extremely patient with him, much more so than I would have been. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 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)

Farce
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)

Talk page editing
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)


 * 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)

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)

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
'''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)


 * "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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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.


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

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)


 * 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)

One More Take
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)

Inside Vs Outside view
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)

Some responses

 * 1) The disputes go back to July, at least, and I've provided diffs and other references to show that I have indeed asked for help on a number of occasions &mdash; not for other editors to help me revert, but for other admins to speak to some of the protagonists in order to get them to calm down. For the most part I found myself on my own &mdash; which was one of the reasons I didn't go to RfC;  there was no second editor involved in the disputes who could endorse an RfC.  It didn't occur to me to take the novel (at least to me) course of parachuting in a couple of admins who have had no connection to the affair (in this case at the behest of another editor who also had nothing to do with it), making a cursory, not to say rudimentary stab at giving the appearance of trying to resolve the dispute, and then launching the RfC.  If that's what's now being endorsed as Wikipedia policy, I'll know in future, and will call on admins (and be prepared to be called on by others) to follow suit.  No, actually I'll not do that; even if it is approved by the ArbCom, I find it dubious and distasteful, and I'll not go along with it.
 * 2) I've also given many diffs that show that I very clearly pointed the editors concerned to the MoS and other relevant sources. Their responses were that they didn't care what Wikipedia policies and style were.
 * 3) The one example of an insult that Anittas can bring up is a comment that I made to PM Poon (who is currently harrassing another editor, incidentally &mdash; see the noticeboard): "I thought that you'd agreed that your English wasn't really up to copy-editing." That comment isn't even insulting out of context (for genuine insult, see Anittas' comments to me on his and my Talk pages), but should anyway be read in the context of an exchange from 15 August: my comment, followed by  PM Poon's reply (insincere, as it turned out).--Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 19:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've also given many diffs that show that I very clearly pointed the editors concerned to the MoS and other relevant sources. Their responses were that they didn't care what Wikipedia policies and style were.


 * Oh, really? Can you provide sources for this claim? Winnermario 21:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Mel tried patiently and repeatedly to explain the issue to Winnermario, only a few of many examples:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winnermario&diff=prev&oldid=23155021
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winnermario&diff=prev&oldid=23184147
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWinnermario&diff=23212445&oldid=23184147
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winnermario&diff=next&oldid=23214665
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winnermario&diff=next&oldid=23332826
 * To put in this into relation, please see this statement of Winnermario:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASince_U_Been_Gone&diff=24431860&oldid=24387286
 * 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjacobi (talk • contribs) October 10, 2005, 15:42 (UTC)
 * Oops, yes, that was my post. --Pjacobi 23:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * However, this statement will not be used against me, as at that point, I had blown my lid over Mel Etitis claiming I was using "PoV" charts (along with a few other editors), while his (and a few other editors) were "NPoV". May I ask how this is? That is clearly another matter of opinion, one's work being PoV, while the other's is also PoV. I agree I had blown my lid at that point, however, please see my profile page to see why I have such short temper. Winnermario 01:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So people can't criticize what you do when you're angry, and you're angry because (to quote your user page) you're "surrounded by unbelievably pathetic people 24/7"? Or do I misunderstand? -- Hoary 04:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You really misunderstand. Not that I'm yelling at you or anything, but let me spare the details, and I won't get all worked up. Winnermario 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would really like it if you did not use "patiently" and "repeatedly" as adjectives in this matter: this makes Mel Etitis look all innocent when he is clearly not. And I never stated that I did not care about MoS, with the songwriting issue, I was just following English songwriting guidelines which Mel Etitis rejected because it was not in his knowledge. Winnermario 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Patiently arguably implies a PoV: it seldom has bad connotations. Repeatedly isn't: you can repeatedly nurse one person to health and repeatedly punch another person senseless. So, regardless of whether the use of the word repeatedly "makes Mel Etitis look all innocent when he is clearly not", is the word appropriate here? And what evidence do you have that the reason why Mel Etitis rejected "English songwriting guidelines" was that he didn't know them? Other possibilities are that he didn't acknowledge them as guidelines for writing about songs, and that he was following MoS, regardless of alternative guidelines. -- Hoary 04:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have come to a conclusion: this is basically the MoS's fault. Mel says that "unified charts" are NPoV (*cough*), and that he's been using MoS in the music singles articles. The problem here is that the MoS is messed up for creating music singles article; this does not change the fact that Mel Etitis acted disgustingly, but it proves that there has to be a different usage of MoS in this case&mdash;unified charts don't make the charts visually-friendly, but the way OmegaWikipedia, and the rest of us have been posting the charts can be compared to the way charts are posted worldwide. Something needs to be done. Really. --Winnermario 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Resources? I think not!
User:Zephram Stark has pointed out the following (this can also be found on the endorsement/vote page):


 * Mel Etis 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. Etis has failed to provide any such source or allow for the uncited criticism to be removed.

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)


 * See:
 * Articles for deletion/Unalienable rights
 * Talk:Inalienable_rights
 * Pjacobi 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you User:Pjacobi for the puppet show. Now returning to my question above, if Mel thinks it is necessary to remove information that is uncited when his is not cited. This relates back to Luxurious (song). Originally uncited, so he put it up for deletion. So why don't we just do that with his articles? This has gotten to the point where it has become asinine. Winnermario 01:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It appears that he nominated for deletion because it includes uncited speculation ("much speculation arose in the talk of what would become the final single of the album"), and also because it references an unreleased single. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and unrefeenced speculation is not allowed. there is no error in nominating the article for deletion (as it appears, it almost didn't survive AfD, and you and others were noted for "incivil" behavior--I also notice that the AfD tag was removed from the article twice during the preceedings). --FuriousFreddy 04:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, then I find it perfectly acceptable to nominate his articles for deletion when he does not cite his sources. I'll do just that. Winnermario 19:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Before you rattle on about the behavior of others, why don't you read through all of the policies and guidelines set in place on WP. If you'd like to continue to look completely inane, why don't you follow through with those AfD's (since you've said you would three times now...). Volatile 22:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You people are only here to discourage us. No one replied to my above comment about "MoS style music-single", but to the one about AfC. Well then, here goes nothing. Winnermario 20:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You wrote above that problems with the MoS are at the root of this dispute, so you could perhaps help to resolve it by putting together a proposal for changing the way the MoS deals with the charts. I don't know which part of it that would go into, but you can ask on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. It's a style guide or guideline, not policy, so it's not that hard to change things. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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