Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mel Ettis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This RFC is bogus in my view. Looking at the diffs, the escalation is coming from the sides of the two editors bringing the RFC. They are causing the problem, and need to back off and chill out. exolon 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of this RfC

I suggested RfC as an option to Mademoiselle Sabina in this edit. This was my idea. Hence, please, don't criticize her for that. My talk page is open to comments from everybody. Cmapm 09:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whose idea it was. it was a bad one - both as a suggestion, and the action to do it. The alleged dispute started from a statement from Mel like this (paraphrasing):

"Alternative" is both a noun and an adjective; "reserve" is fine, though.

—Mel, User talk:Mademoiselle Sabina#"Alternative"

This is called compromise - I disagree with you, but your proposed substituted language is ok. That is the wiki way. I can not figure out why that comment made Sabina so irritated, other than the other dispute with Mel about a month earlier left her irritated in general at Mel. Anyway, I have reviewed much of the of the conflice and I suggest the RfC be withdrawn. Trödel 12:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I respect your opinions and all the time you have spent reviewing this case. Thank you.

The reason the comment irked me (in addition to the reason you mentioned about my prior contact with Mel) was because I had already changed the word to the neutral third term, I had left a comment as such in the edit summary, and considered the matter closed. Mel is the one who decided to persue the matter on my Talk Page.Mademoiselle Sabina 17:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Mel was not trying to "pursue the matter" - but just inform you he is ok with the change even though he disagrees with you on the english language usage issue. Even if he was not - wikipedians should assume good faith, doing so in this case would have, IMHO, avoided much distraction Trödel 11:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion on who and how started the dispute and will not decline it. I personally would agree to close the discussion provided that several conditions are met:

• Mel Etitis deletes the page he created. As follows from his recent edit, it was created solely for me, but I had already made a comment on it and consider it to be useless now
• All three of us sign a statement on this RfC with the following points (IMHO):
  • All three of us agree to stop the discussion and close RfC
  • We three stay with our opinions, expressed in the discussion and don't decline them.
  • We'll made no any future references to this discussion
  • We all were wrongdoing in certain way since the beginning of this discussion and apologize each other for possible improper conduct. Cmapm 13:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "attack page"

Mel's alleged "attack page" at User:Mel_Etitis/Mademoiselle_Sabina seems an appropriate way to keep track of the goings-on relating to Mademoiselle_Sabina's accusations. About a month ago, she was in a disagreement with him on Talk:Kristen_Maloney over something almost as small as this, which was resolved by somebody else who simply read the talk page [1]. Nobody seems to have made a big deal of it except her. So, after she started complaining regarding the Tasha_Schwikert article without discussing it on the Talk:Tasha_Schwikert page (which is a red link as of 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)... reason enough to retract this RfC), I think it'd make sense to just summarize what she's done in a short user-space place in case it ever escalates, which is exactly what happened. As Special:Whatlinkshere/User_talk:Mel_Etitis/Mademoiselle_Sabina shows, there are (at this time) no links going from anywhere else toward his "attack page" aside from the ones posted by the two people who made this complaint. Additionally, it's a very short page, has links showing the changes, and lacks any sign of what one normally means when they say "attack page". I see no reason to delete it unless Mel feels that he's not in danger of having any more future complaints against him. It would be wise for her to calm down some as well, and actually explain things when she feels that meaning is changed; people do read talk pages (which is why the earlier conflict went so smoothly). --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 16:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not disagree with you on the matter of calming down.

In regards to the Tasha Schwikert edit, Mel is the one who chose to discuss the matter on my Talk Page. I simply changed his edit to a neutral third statement, added a comment about the change in the edit summary and went on my way. He is the one who chose to comment about the matter, which was closed, on my Talk Page.

In addition, my problem with Mel's edits is well outlined below. In the case of certain gymnastics articles, he has come in and 'tidied' removing terms and words that are essential to the sport and the understanding of the articles. He does this with respect only for his own standard of grammar, ignoring what the terms really mean in the context of the article. It don't think it's fair to edit articles without making an effort to understand how and why they are written. Mademoiselle Sabina 17:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

When you speak about "Mademoiselle Sabina's accusations" please, don't forget about me. I will not repent of my statement, that Mel Etitis did personal attacks on Mademoiselle Sabina, beginning with his revert of her edit, which he marked as "some tidying".If this was not personal attack, then e.g. I should be free to revert any of his edits (even correct ones), marking it as "some tidying" or the "sloppy one". Not to mention, that Mademoiselle Sabina, according to her user page seems to be an expert in gymnastics-related articles, while Mel Etitis doesn't seem to be one. Cmapm 17:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I finally found the attack page, Thanks to user: Cmapm for embedding in the discussion(s) thread(s). From the foregoing, Mel apparently is in the wrong for using "some tidying", which is about as inoffensive a way as saying "some fiddling", "some minor change", "some comma", "some typo", "some spelling"... If one takes a look at Mels contributions day in and day out, I suspect you will see that two word phrase 50% to 70% of his actual (non-talk) edits. HOW, oh, How does that amount to a PERSONAL ATTACK?. (God, please give me understanding of what this matter is all about? What did the devil twist to cause this insanity?)

He patrols newbies like MS, as do all the Admins. That's p/o the Admin job. If it was also a revert, it's still small potatoes. The principal purpose of the comment/discriptions is to A) Doc Significant Changes B) Flag things like clean/disputed/accuracy templates that generate a place on a work list (project page) that spawns more edits and attention. The patrolling Admins have different styles, and this looks like ALTERNATE vs. ALTERNATIVE all over. A mere bump in the road. FrankB 18:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this inoffensive, if some people consider this to be offensive? It was not offensive to me, when he explained one of my changes so some time ago. My English is bad and I was happy :) But it hurts some people with clear English and in my view is offensive relative to them. Hence, I think it's not less offensive, than Mademoiselle Sabina's comments referred to me with no names and links, considered to be "personal attacks" by Mel Etitis. Cmapm 18:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding beginning with his revert of her edit, which he marked as "some tidying". He made an edit after she did (history for that page), and I think that this is what you meant when you say "revert". I think you might have a different idea as to the definition of revert. Did she change it from "alternative" to "alternate" and then he undid it, calling it tidying? That would indeed be rude. The article has less than 20 edits, I read through all of them and it doesn't look like he was undoing something, but just changed a word to another, presumably because he thought one sounded nicer than the other without realizing the difference in meaning. He didn't argue about it or change it again after she changed it. I don't understand how this is not already over with. While I was writing this, I see that you added a comment saying your english is bad, so I'll explain. "Revert" means to undo something, and set it back to how it was in the past. Most edits made right after someone else has made an edit are not called "reverts". It is only a "revert" if they are changing the article to become how it was before someone else edited it. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 18:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

He didn't argue about it or change it again after she changed it. This is actually the crux of the issue. I didn't argue with Mel after he made the initial change--I changed the word to a third neutral term. left a comment in the edit summary and went on my way. End of story, or so I thought.

Mel did argue about MY change...in the form of leaving a comment on my Talk Page--not the article's Talk Page, mine. The comment was unnecessary. The situation escalated from there. Mademoiselle Sabina 20:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(After two edit conflicts)
Just a minor point. Cmapm has taken to calling this (on Talk pages, etc.) his RfC, claiming that he started it. A glance at the edit History of the RfC indicates pretty clearly that that isn't the case. His first edit to it was this, some eleven hours after its creation. I don't understand why this discrepancy ahs arisen, and perhaps it doesn't matter, but I thought that I'd point it out.

With regard to Cmapm's last comment: I don't really follow it, I'm afraid, but the one point that I can understand is the relativist implication that something is offensive just in case somebody takes offence at it. That isn't the case; people can take offence because they've misunderstood, because they're overly sensitive, etc. When, some thirty years ago, a friend of mine was a producer for the BBC, responsible for educational programmes, she received sackfuls of post about a programme showing a middle-class black family, from racists who were offended by it. Did that make it offensive? That is, was the programme at fault, or were they? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim that I started it, I said "I originated it", which I emphasized in this article. I suggested her it in this edit and agreed and agree with all of her claims against you. While she is a newbie, as e.g. FrankB admits, saying, "that he (Mel Etitis) was just patrolling newbies in his edits", I'm not a newbie (>1 year and >3000 edits here), hence I'm responsible for originating the RFC. Cmapm 19:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As regards to your comparison, criminals are a separate issue. Equality between racists and civil people is like equality between Wikipedians with large amount of minor edits and Wikipedians with few edits, but with a high quality of each edit. Cmapm 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Fine; my apologies for misunderstanding.
2. You miss my point — you seem not to have realised that it was an analogy. Offensiveness isn't relative in the way that you suggest; something isn't offensive just because one person takes offence.
3. Looking further up the page, the crux of this seems to be Mademoiselle Sabina's belief (and apparently your agreement) that "'reserve' is fine" constitutes arguing against the use of "reserve". That leaves me utterly perplexed. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The crux of the issue was not the use of the word reserve. It was the fact that you left me a message about it to begin with. I left a note in the edit summary on the article's page. Why did you not use the Talk Page on the article, if you wished to discuss the term? Why did you continue leaving messages when I asked you several times to stop and told you I did not wish to argue? That's what this was about. I say "was" because this is the last I am going to say on the issue. As far as I am concerned I wish to put this behind me and will not respond to further messsages about it. Mademoiselle Sabina 23:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't reply on your 2nd point and make you know, that from now on I leave all your words on your own conscience. No replies to you on any topic are available from me. Cmapm 23:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General note

As a general note, I'm amazed, that people here speak of an expert in the same way they would speak about an ordinary "annoying user" with "repeated annoying edits". Since the time I've been here in Wiki, I haven't seen more professional edits, than Mademoiselle Sabina's edits of gymnastics-related articles. Please, don't make such users thinking of Wikipedia as a "social club with no regard for professional expertise", as said 172 ones in a time. Cmapm 20:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)