Kelly Martin (talk | contribs) m →Addendum: change users to editors |
|||
Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
#{{User:Freakofnurture/sig}} 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I've seen nothing to suggest Mel is acting outside of good faith. |
#{{User:Freakofnurture/sig}} 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I've seen nothing to suggest Mel is acting outside of good faith. |
||
#[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC) |
#[[User talk:Duk|Duk]] 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC) |
||
# [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Outside views== |
==Outside views== |
Revision as of 03:36, 9 October 2005
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 3:25 UTC, 7 October 2005, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:21, 19 June 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
Mel Etitis (talk · contribs) has been involved in disputes in several articles, including music related articles. These disputes have lasted for quite some time. There have been some attempts to resolve the dispute, however, many of these negotiations have fallen apart. Mel Etitis and several other editors have resorted to reverting each other for quite some time.
In several instances, Mel Etitis has claimed that contrary to Manual of Style reversions count as simple vandalism. In one instance, he admitted to violating 3RR himself arguing that is was justified because the other user was committing "simple vandalism" [1] (which would allegedly permit Mel to make such reversions).
Mel Etitis states on his user page that admins are entrusted by the community, therefore they should be held to even a higher standard then other editors. While he should not be expected to sit idly by while articles are changed in a adverse fashion, he should work to resolve these disputes instead of reverting changes. Having a "revert first, ask questions later" attitude hampers progress, adds to the frustration in a dispute, and sets a bad example for other users.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) Below is a list of some of the articles that contain reversions/disputes:
- Since_U_Been_Gone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute over time format
- Cool (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Mel reverts edits instead of trying to improve upon them. Note: this dispute seems to have been resolved.
- Behind These Hazel Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Toxic (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
- Love You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of album covers and wikilinking in dates
- Hollaback Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Trouble with Love Is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Because of You (Kelly Clarkson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- I'm with You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
- Sk8er Boi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
- Miss Independent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - "The song" vs "Song information" header
- Time Out (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - reinserting a line
- Jethro Tull (agriculturist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Low (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Beach Boys (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of other album image covers
- Made in U.S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
- L.A. (Light Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
- Keepin' the Summer Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
- M.I.U. Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
- Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking as well as changing seasons
- Removal of some date wikilinking as well as changing seasons
- Removal of some date wikilinking, changing seasons and time format
- Chaning of time format
- Still Cruisin' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
- Ten Years of Harmony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
Applicable policies
- Three revert rule
- Wikipedia:Revert - "Edit wars considered harmful"
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- Request by Bmicomp to stop reverting - 03:57, 5 October 2005
- Response from Mel Etitis - 07:12, 5 October 2005
- Response from Bmcomp - 14:09, 5 October 2005
- Response from Mel Etitis - 15:38, 5 October 2005
- Response from Bmcomp - 14:09, 5 October 2005
- Response from Mel Etitis - 07:12, 5 October 2005
- Request by Phroziac to stop reverting - 20:08, 5 October 2005
- No response by Mel Etitis.
- Request by Bmicomp to stop reverting - 03:57, 5 October 2005
Evidence of continued behavior after attemps to resolve dispute
- Since U Been Gone - 08:43, 6 October 2005
- Low (song) - 08:50, 6 October 2005
- Since U Been Gone - 21:42, 5 October 2005
- Behind These Hazel Eyes - 21:41, 5 October 2005
- Time Out(album) - 21:25, 5 October 2005
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Phroziac(talk)
03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
- Ral315 WS 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's an increasing problem on wikipedia that admins are some of the most active and frequent participants in revert wars. That it takes two to revert war is not an excuse either, as admins in general should be working to foster consensus. Rangerdude 18:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Anittas 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- BGC 11:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Tony SidawayTalk 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC) It's disturbing that an administrator is regularly involved in revert wars. Revert wars to enforce the manual of style are well off the anti-vandalism radar. A clear line needs to be drawn well away from this behavior.
- This user should discuss the modifications he/she made when someone else reverts them before instead of engaging in a revert war. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Domnu Goie 20:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC) revert wars are not constructive.
- It doesn't matter in the slightest who you are, you do not revert war. Reverting is not improvement; improvement is improvement. I would expect any administrator to know what consensus is and how to work towards it. You have become as stubborn and closed-minded as the people you are fighting. Rob Church Talk 01:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jeorjika 02:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC) agreed with those above.
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.
The "evidence" shows me trying to maintain articles in the face of stubborn and aggressive resistenace by a small group of editors who openly admitted that they didn't care about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or accepted style. The supposed evidence for trying to resolve the issue consists of two messages on my Talk page two days ago. There's no acknowledgement of the fact that I've stopped reverting, have placed a number of the affected articles at RfC, in order to get outside comment (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature), have been discussing the possibility of setting up a discussion page concerning some of the issues (see Talk:The Trouble with Love Is), and have myself spent a great deal of time in (genuine) attempts to resolve the problems at the Talk pages of the editors concerned (see the histories of User talk:OmegaWikipedia, User talk:Ultimate Star Wars Freak, and User talk:Winnermario for examples). My attempts to bring Wikipedia style and standards to a large group of articles has been met by a refusal to discuss the issues and hysterical insults, and the small posse of editors named above (recently joined by Anittas (talk · contribs), and some new accounts and IP addresses making exactly the same edits with the same style of edit summary [or none]) has been engaging in a sort of concerted campaign aimed at me personally. BMIComp and Phroziac have come to this very recently, and faced with a situation in which some six or seven genuine editors, plus various likely sock-puppets & mock-puppets, have been reverting, have decided to focus on me. I don't know what their motivation is, but it seems clearly to be neither a sense of fairness nor a genuine concern for the quality of Wikipedia. (In the case of Phroziac (talk · contribs), I may be wrong, but I think that his only connection with this is that he left one message on my Talk page a couple of days ago, which makes his position as certifying the basis of the RfC shaky I'd have thought.)
Oh, I should add that, because my view that persistent reverting of edits that brought an article in line with MoS, naming policies, etc., is vandalism, I didn't deliberately or knowingly break 3RR; I broke it once (I think) inadvertently, and was more careful thereafter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- SqueakBox 16:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC). Mel looks to be doing a good job in good faith and this rfc should not be here.
- Extraordinary Machine 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC). While Mel's violation of 3RR may be cause for concern, I think the real problem here is how a small but seemingly omnipresent group of editors are automatically reverting genuinely useful edits made to "their" articles, despite justifications made by several other users (see Talk:The Trouble with Love Is, as well as an old discussion at the Village Pump) on why those edits should stay.
- Sean Jelly Baby? 00:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)-Also agree with Extraordinary Machine above.
- SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Mel is trying to maintain the style laid out in the MoS, and at least one of the editors he's up against, User:OmegaWikipedia, has been reverting not only Mel's style changes, but also the grammar and spelling mistakes that Mel had corrected. I'm also not sure that I see the diffs offered above as evidence of an attempt to resolve the dispute.
- Calton | Talk 09:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC) The continual and misleading use of the term "vandalism" by the complainants in the edit summaries of their reversions of Mel's edits makes me doubt their sense of perspective.
- ~~~~ 09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I've seen nothing to suggest Mel is acting outside of good faith.
- Duk 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
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.
Outside view by Angr
Clearly, edit warring is bad. And I don't think the changes Mel Etitis was reverting count as "simple vandalism"; therefore he should not have exceeded the 3RR. Nevertheless, from reading the comments at Talk:The Trouble with Love Is#Reasons For Changes, it does seem that he was trying to maintain NPOV and reduce the U.S.-centeredness (or in the case of Avril Lavigne, Canada-centeredness) of the pages in question. A request for comment on the layout of the pages would have been more appropriate than a request for comment on Mel Etitis's behavior.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view by McClenon
Mel Etitis has posted a previous question about whether repeated reverts of his MoS edits should be considered vandalism-like. In looking at what I think the problem really is, it appears that there are several loyal editors of the music articles who have a disregard of the Manual of Style, and who want the usage in the articles to resemble the usage in the fanzines and the music press. It appears to me that what they actually think is that the Manual of Style should be revised with respect to music to reflect the usage of the music press. What we really have is a difference of opinion as to what the stylistic standards should be.
There is (as far as I can tell) a consensus that reverting of MoS edits to replace them with non-standard style is not vandalism. As a result, the 3RR rule should apply. Mel should not revert the same article more than three times in 24 hours.
There should be a discussion of whether to change the MoS standards for music, rather than revert wars and edit wars and claims of vandalism. What is needed is not a user conduct RfC (although there has been a minor violation by Mel in going over 3RR), but a standards RfC. Robert McClenon 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Robert McClenon 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (though I think ME as a more experienced editor should recognize this as the way to tackle the dispute and not edit-war over it)
Addendum
I should add that if the persistent non-standard editors refuse to propose changes to the Manual of Style, then they are being disruptive. If they are persistently reverting MoS edits, then Mel would have a right to go to dispute resolution against them.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Robert McClenon 00:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I support Mel's right to raise a user conduct RFC with respect to these editors. I do not support his right to edit war them into 3RR blocks, which is what he appears to be doing in these cases. Kelly Martin 03:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Outside view by Pjacobi
Cleaning up after contributors who don't share the goal of writing an encyclopedia and who think International is the antonym of U.S. is a tough job. Mel Etitis should get more support in doing so. --Pjacobi 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Pjacobi 18:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- CSTAR 04:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Calton | Talk 09:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon 15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- SqueakBox 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Duk 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Monicasdude 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Outside view by Gamaliel
It takes at least two parties to conduct an edit war. This RfC makes no mention of who ME is reverting or why he is doing it. This isn't to say that edit warring is justified by the actions of others, just that the context of this dispute is missing, and given the absence of any context presented by the filers of this RfC, I see no reason not to take ME at his word. Two requests for a single party in an edit war to stop reverting is not an attempt to resolve anything, it is merely scolding which avoids the root problem here, as does this RfC.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Gamaliel 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jkelly 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- SqueakBox 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Duk 18:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Monicasdude 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Outside view by Jkelly
I would like to put forward my strong conviction that this RfC shows poor judgement. While I am sure that BMIComp and Phroziac are only holding Mel Etitis to the high standard that he has asked them to, this RfC, coming at this point in time does not help Wp. It instead reinforces the idea held by some other parties at the heart of this dispute that the way in which one can avoid having one's contributions copyedited to conform to Wp policy is to complain about being harrassed (see this edit ), attack the copyeditor's character (see this edit), round up a number of potential allies (see this edit) and then make the other user feel unwelcome in various places throughout Wp (see this edit). This is behaviour that the community needs to discourage, not give a gift of legitimacy to.
Furthermore, although this is less of a direct connection, I suggest that this RfC discourages editors from imposing standards upon an article in the face of belligerance. In summary, while I generally support holding admins to a higher standard than regular editors, there is also a larger context that needs thoughtful examination before going forward with third-party dispute resolution processes.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Jkelly 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. Willmcw 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- SqueakBox 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Duk 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Monicasdude 18:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Outside view by Anittas
Bad things have been said by me, intentionally - things I don't regret saying. However, people here seem to have been missed two things:
1. Winnermario and OmegaWikipedia tried to compromise with Mel; they tried to reason with him; they tried to meet him in the middle - all to no avail. Mel doesn't have a problem with just the MoS, but also with table viewing and additional information which he deemed unnecessary to the specific articles.
2. I expressed the will to go back to status quo with Mel. I didn't ask to be his best friend. I asked for a what I believe, was a reasonble thing: to burry the hatchet. Mel gave me the cold shoulder. He only addressed me in third-person. This indicated, at least to me, that he's not interested in ending our conflict.
Furthermore, I will say that some the people here argued different things for wrong reasons. My conflict with Mel has little to do with him violating the 3RR and with his refusal to actually listen to the other party. This conflict started before I got to the scene. People who tried to excuse Mel's behaviour by mentioning my agressive temper which was used against him, are wrong. Those problems don't relate to each other.
It's true that I reverted some of the articles in question, mainly because I don't see the harm in having those extra tables; but again, this has nothing to do with me organizing people to criticize Mel, or insulting him. He didn't revert the articles because I insulted him on my talk-page! If we are to include those seperate problems, then let us also discuss the subject that caused them. --Anittas 04:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view by Tony Sidaway
Edit warring is bad for Wikipedia. That's not just me speaking, it's the voice of Wikipedia policy.
Wikipedia official policy on reverts, a policy that everyone is expected to follow, states:
- If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page.
In a recent arbitration case, Yuber, the Committee adopted the following principle by five votes to nil:
- Edit warring is harmful to the purpose of Wikipedia and to the morale of its editors.
It went further, passing the following remedy on one of its own number, Jayjg, by four votes to nil with one abstention:
- Jayjg (talk · contribs) is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts.
In that case, the Committee has chosen to ban one editor from a class of articles for one month, and to place another on probation, primarily for edit warring.
It is bad for Wikipedia when an editor engages in edit wars. When that editor is an administrator, it is also bad for administrator morale, it makes admimnistrators look like hypocrites, and when he is supported in his warring behavior it brings inevitable and quite justifiable accusations of cronyism. It is thus a very serious matter indeed.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
- Tony SidawayTalk 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with this. There is no excuse for an edit war. There's a reason we have Requests for Comment, the Administrator Notice Board, and user and article discussion pages. Every editor is expected to use these things in favor to engaging in edit warring. Kelly Martin 03:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.