Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:04, 9 October 2005

For reference purposes, I've blocked Mel for 3RR violation on Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song). Ral315 W_S 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

And he's since been unblocked by FeloniousMonk. Ral315 W_S 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!

Misplaced Pages doesn't impose standards in the face of belligerence. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 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 Misplaced Pages than continue to spend time producing even more proof that Mel is, in fact, edit warring to the grave harm of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages and to the morale of its editors. This isn't news, it's spelled out in Misplaced Pages 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 06:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Which is more harmful to the purpose of Misplaced Pages 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. Ral315 W_S 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. Kelly Martin 07:37, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages administrators. --Tony Sidaway 07:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a number of people here could consider carefully before making absolute or extreme statements here, and "totalitarian" isn't alone. 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 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)