text:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mel Etitis

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: 3:25 UTC, 7 October 2005, the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 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
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" (27 July 2005, WP:ANI) (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:

 * - Dispute over time format
 * Revision as of 11:16, 2 October 2005 "Reverted edits by OmegaWikipedia to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 22:06, 1 October 2005 "Reverted edits by 196.25.255.210 to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 09:34, 1 October 2005 "Reverted edits by Winnermario to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 21:39, 30 September 2005 "Comprehensive charts - tidied"
 * Revision as of 21:11, 28 September 2005 "Reverted edits by OmegaWikipedia to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 15:07, 28 September 2005 "Reverted edits by Winnermario to last version by 196.25.255.210"
 * Revision as of 11:00, 27 September 2005 "Reverted edits by Winnermario to last version by Mel Etitis"

 * Unification of charts (international and USA)
 * Revision as of 18:44, 3 October 2005 "revert contra-MoS edits, addition of unsourced trivia, etc."
 * Revision as of 08:43, 3 October 2005 "rv to unified table"
 * Revision as of 17:19, 2 October 2005 "Comprehensive chart - tidied charts table"
 * Revision as of 14:01, 1 October 2005 "Reverted edits by 198.54.202.234 to last version by 198.54.202.226"
 * Revision as of 21:16, 29 September 2005 "tidied & returned to unified table"
 * Revision as of 11:40, 29 September 2005 "Reverted edits by 198.54.202.226 to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 17:08, 26 September 2005 "Reverted edits by OmegaWikipedia to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 19:23, 25 September 2005 "rv to single table"
 * Revision as of 22:18, 24 September 2005 "Comprehensive charts - combined tables"
 * Other
 * Revision as of 11:36, 27 September 2005 "rm addition of too much detail in poor English"
 * Revision as of 11:36, 27 September 2005 "rm addition of too much detail in poor English"

 * - Mel reverts edits instead of trying to improve upon them. Note: this dispute seems to have been resolved.
 * Revision as of 13:57, 17 August 2005 "Reverted edits by David Pierce to last version by Mel Etitis"
 * Revision as of 16:21, 13 September 2005 "rv to last version by 205.188.116.138"
 * Revision as of 18:09, 14 September 2005 "reverting *is* to improve"
 * Revision as of 10:47, 15 September 2005 "Reverted edits by David Pierce to last version by Mel Etitis"

 * Unification of charts (Billboard vs others)
 *
 *
 *
 * Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of album covers and wikilinking in dates
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 * - "rv unexplained changes"
 * - "rv unexplained changes"

 * Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 *
 *
 *
 * Naming of elements in infobox
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 * Time format in infobox
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 *
 *

 * - Unification of charts (International vs. USA)
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - "The song" vs "Song information" header
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - reinserting a line
 *
 *
 *

 * - "returned to clearer version"
 * - "returned to clearer style & rm overlinking (again)"
 * - "returned to clearer style & rm overlinking (again)"

 * Unification of charts (Billboard vs other)
 *
 *
 *
 * Headings
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of other album image covers
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 * [

 * 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
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

 * - Removal of other album image covers and removal of some date wikilinking
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

Applicable policies

 * Three revert rule
 * 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
 * Request by Phroziac to stop reverting - 20:08, 5 October 2005
 * No response by Mel Etitis.

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)[[Image:Flag_of_Phyzech_Republic.svg|25px]] 03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Ral 315   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 Sidaway Talk 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.
 * There is absolutely no excuse for an edit war. Kelly Martin 03:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Unacceptable behaviour. Especially from an admin. Winnermario 16:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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. 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)
 * Agreed with most of the above comments. I've had disagreements with people in the past, and we've been able to settle them. But it's hard when you have an admin who insults and harrasses editors. OmegaWikipedia 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel Etitis 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. Etitis has failed to provide any such source or allow for the uncited criticism to be removed.  --Zephram Stark 19:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The revert first, ask questions later habit is getting out of control on Wikipedia. People active in the old days  would cringe at the liberties the new crop of self-styled experts take. Mel seems to be one of these. His offenses do not justify even a short ban. They do justify de-admining. JDG 07:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mel's behavior would cause him to fail any attempt at obtaining adminship today. He is a textbook example of an abusive admin and I support starting any sort of de-admining procedure. Klonimus 10:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of Mel until I recently ran into his "revert, not edit" style of editing in which he reverted like clock work almost every day for a week The City of God. He never gave substantive reasons other than vauge "pov" "grammar" "original research" without really backing it up why. It seems to be resolved for now (he's stopped reverting) but it was handled poorly, it was an edit war effectivly. He is also using line-breaks in articles which is non-standard (it's not in the MoS) and continues to put them in articles according to his personal taste, saying that it's justified because they exist in other articles (which I assume he has added himself, mostly). --Stbalbach 15:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't question his good intentions, only his approach. He was a little bit to gung-ho in deleting Category:French Mexicans, he reverted my attempts to improve the category. I don't deny that he had some good points but he didn't take the time to explain those points and chose to just revert me a couple of times. I wish this revert-frenzy of some admins would end for good. --Vizcarra 18:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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 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, 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, 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 ( ??? ?????? ) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Mel Etitis  ( ??? ?????? ) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) Sean Jelly Baby? 00:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)-Also agree with Extraordinary Machine above.
 * 5) 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.
 * SlimVirgin, seeing as you know more about this case then others, I'm suprised you are misrepresenting the truth of the matter. OmegaWikipedia 18:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) — F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  09:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC) I've seen nothing to suggest Mel is acting outside of good faith.
 * 3) Duk 18:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) FeloniousMonk 04:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I've only seen Mel act in good faith and in the best interest of the community.
 * 6) Mel is a good admin who deals appropriately with bad editors. I agree that Mel is editing in good faith. — Davenbelle 10:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  13:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Before this thing came up I've had differences of opinion with Mel. Mel is not unfair in solving differences of opinion. I subscribe Mel completely on this one. Don't let the turkeys get you down! --Francis Schonken 18:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Finally able to look through the diffs and the talk pages - Mel dealt with this correctly.  The rest of us failed him by not providing adequate support for his effort to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.  Guettarda 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) It looks to me like Mel is doing his best in the face of attacks. Apart from anything else, the talk page here makes that obvious. William M. Connolley 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC).
 * 12) Karl Meier 20:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) From what I have seen, I believe this RfC is in bad faith. As far as music-related articles are concerned, Mel has been stressing himself with attempting to properly cleanup and format highly POV, gushy, and biased articles written by pop music fans who have little or no regard for Wikipedia standards, and show no interest in attempting to conform to them. Breaking the 3RR was a minor mistake; what he really needs, instead of an RfC, are more moderators to help him with cleanups and handling of errant editors.--FuriousFreddy 00:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) From everything I've had the misfortune to witness or be involved in myself, Mel has taken every method in good faith. The real problem is a small, but tenacious group of individuals who don't respect the MoS; or any of WikiPedia's guidelines for that matter. Several of the endorsers of this RfC in particular are questionable, and OW has skirted dangerously close to getting his own RfC at times. A real solution to this issue would be a larger core of moderators (other than Mel by his lonesome) enforcing WikiPedia guidelines (esp. MoS) across the music articles. Volatile 18:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Though I think Mel tends to use the term "vandalism" a little too quickly (for many cases I'd prefer "degradation" or some other alternative), I agree with the gist of what he says here. Hoary 15:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) El_C 05:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Stirling Newberry 03:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Moumine 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) User:BrandonYusufToropov Mel is totally undeserving of this kind of ridiculous proceeding. Fortunately, the claims against him vanish into insignificance on close inspection. Mel should be flattered by the nature of the opposition he has generated; it's a sign that he's doing a good job. BrandonYusufToropov 09:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Denis Diderot 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment

 * User:FuriousFreddy insists this RfC is in bad faith? The foot is in the other shoe. And if the 3RR violation was a mistake, then why was he blocked before the 24 hours were complete? This is not acceptable. Winnermario 01:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Believe, not insists. Please do not misquote users. --FuriousFreddy 04:23, 11 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, 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 ~ ):
 * 1) Angr/undefined 06:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) --fvw *  01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) --Volatile 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Extraordinary Machine 22:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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 ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) I think inadequate consideration has been given to the possibility that the editors involved in these disputes (with the exception of Mel, an administrator and highly experienced Wikipedian) may simply not know the proper way to question policy, or even be aware of policy at all. Mel, as an administrator and highly experienced Wikipedian, should probably have recognized that this is what was going on and assisted these editors in starting a discussion of the appropriateness of policy.  To instead revert them repeatedly is biting the newbies.  To the extent that Mel may have been biting newbies, and more generally failing to live up to his obligations as an administrator, this RfC is justified.  Otherwise, I agree with Robert McClenon's opinion.  Kelly Martin 03:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Saying that revert wars are bad is not terribly controversial and I'm sure Mel agrees with it too. This clearheaded analysis comes closest to identifying the real crux of this dispute. --Michael Snow 21:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC) A standards RfC would be a dream come true.

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 ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 00:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) *I would just like to point out that RfCs against some were considered (and, in one case, actually drawn up), but it was decided to try and resolve the situation peacefully first. --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 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 ~ ):

 * 1) Pjacobi 18:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Carnildo 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) SlimVirgin (talk)  01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) CSTAR 04:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Calton | Talk 09:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Robert McClenon 15:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) SqueakBox 15:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Duk 18:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Monicasdude 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) FeloniousMonk 05:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Karl Meier 21:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Volatile 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Viriditas | Talk 02:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Extraordinary Machine 22:07, 22 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 ~ ):

 * 1) Gamaliel 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Ann Heneghan (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Carnildo 21:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Jkelly 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) SlimVirgin (talk)  01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Robert McClenon 15:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) SqueakBox 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Duk 18:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Monicasdude 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Volatile 18:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Hapsiainen 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Viriditas  | Talk 02:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Extraordinary Machine 22:07, 22 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 ~ ):

 * 1) Jkelly 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) SlimVirgin (talk)  01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Indeed. Willmcw 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Robert McClenon 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) SqueakBox 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Duk 18:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Monicasdude 18:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Shinobu 10:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Hoary 15:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) The talk page of this RfC has convinced me that ME is the wronged party here. Gamaliel 17:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Agree with Gamaliel.  Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) The conduct of some of the endorsers of this RfC amounts to playground behavior, and should not be  accepted here. Volatile 18:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Extraordinary Machine 22:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Qirex 10:38, 6 November 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 ~ ):

 * 1) OmegaWikipedia 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC) As I mentioned in my outside view, I've tried to talk to Mel, and third parties have been called in, but the opinions of the third party suddenly don't exist when Mel doesnt agree with them. I've always tried to start anew with Mel, but was met with similar coldness. OmegaWikipedia 20:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Winnermario 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) The above are the facts. It appears that the users who are backing up Mel Etitis are using Anittas's, OmegaWikipedia's, DrippingInk's and my fury and anger against us to support him. For example, check out the talk page where DrippingInk made a comment, but User:SlimVirgin and User:Kelly Martin used his fury against him to make it look like he was the criminal when it was Mel Etitis who insulted DrippingInk. This is unacceptable and makes us look like the criminals when we are not. Winnermario 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Bonaparte, 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC). I fully agree with Anittas. He made his points very clear.Bonaparte 13:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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:

 *  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 ~ ):
 * 1) Tony Sidaway Talk  03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3)  Ral  315   WS  07:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC) I agree that Mel's edits were in good faith, but edit wars should not be tolerated.
 * 4) Robert McClenon 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Rangerdude 07:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) --Vizcarra 17:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Charles Stewart 20:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC): Mel's attempt to justify his violations of 3RR with the vandalism clause provide a particularly poor example for WP.

Outside view by FeloniousMonk
I've been watching this situation for over a week, and have been peripherally involved in trying to get those who opposed Mel to cease making personal attacks. During this time I saw Mel only contribute positively to Wikipedia and act in good faith. On the other hand, several of the above, particularly Anittas, were actively badgering Mel with numerous personal attacks.

Mel brought the difficulty he was having in his efforts to the attention of fellow admins at WP:AN/I several times asking for assistance. Few responded, and none of those who chastise him here now bothered to respond, much less assist. Mel was only seeking assistance in tidying and conforming articles to the MOS. That he is here now is indicative of the failures other admins, not his own. That fellow admins who failed to act would now criticize him for pushing forward in spite of their lack of response to his call for help is shameful.

For those here who'd insist on a zero-tolerance for admins who revert back their good efforts undone by those with no claim other than defending what they perceive to be their article (and that is what Mel faced): Conforming an article to the MOS should be non-controversial. Wikipedia enjoins all responsible editors to do so, admins doubly so. That a few particular editors decide to take offense to those doing this work because of protectiveness over their perceived turf, etc. is not sufficient justification for Mel or anyone else to have to take it to RFC just to get enough support to move forward with tidying.

To insist on rigid adherence to inflexible rules is to prescribe gridlock for Wikipedia. Admins have in the past been afforded discretion in how to respond in these matters. How many here have benefited from having that discretion granted by the community? Mel's case is no different. Mel asked that the community show integrity when he needed assistance. This RFC has been the community's response.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) FeloniousMonk 04:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Shinobu 10:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) SlimVirgin (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC) — except I would point out that the MoS is not policy, but even so, Mel's edits were generally improving the articles by correcting spelling and grammar too, and he should have been supported in that.
 * 4) I endorse this, although I would have chosen a less strong word than shameful – perhaps unfortunate. Of course people who feel very strongly about the harmfulness of edit warring are quite right to say so here. I also feel that Reversions are useless, please don't do it is not sufficient evidence of really trying and failing to resolve the dispute. I read the posts on WP:ANI, and it's obvious that Mel asked for help, and got some, but not very much. Finally, although I don't like edit wars, I feel that for Mel to have started an RfC on Anittas, et al. would have been a far more counterproductive example of biting newcomers than simply reverting edits, while explaining that these edits did not conform to the MoS, which is what he did. Ann Heneghan (talk) 11:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Hoary 14:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Monicasdude 16:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) The talk page of this RfC has convinced me that ME is the wronged party here. Gamaliel 17:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) --Duk 17:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Guettarda 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Volatile 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Hapsiainen 05:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Extraordinary Machine 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Shinobu
I've just finished wading through the edit summaries, and although I have given my support to two of the statements above, I still feel I want to say one or two words about this.

Revert warring is bad. Usually it doesn't lead to a solution, and the summaries above show that's true in this case as well.

However, most of ME's edits seem to be based on good faith. It is clear to me that ME needed to do something - leaving the articles in question alone was no option if you keep our goal of writing factual, neutral and correctly styled encyclopaedia in mind. Seen in this context RfC'ing ME seems to me an ill-adviced act.

That is not to say I would have acted the same way if I would have been put in his situation. For instance, ME could have filed RfC's or taken them to the ArbCom. Granted, the bad edits would have remained, but since the other parties remained editing as well, effectively the bad edits remained in any case.

As for deliberately ignoring the MoS, it seems clear to me that in most cases that's vandalism, and I think many people would agree with me. Since ME has the same opinion regarding this matter, then why didn't he block the other parties? (Or did I miss that? If so, why didn't it help?) I always understood vandals got blocked, and that seems to me to be a much more effective way than trying to fight them in a revert war.

But, although I disagree with his methods in this case, I think that while writing a quality encyclopaedia a goal of ME, it's not a goal of the others.

Leaves me to note that the way the initiators of this RfC contacted ME was quite unhelpful considering what the real problem was. "I know you think the dispute resolution process is fruitless" — so why not try to make it less so?

It is obvious that ME is not the bad guy here (even though he did break procedure) and I would have expected at least a bit more patience on behalf of the initiators (the first message left on ME's talk page was dated the 5th, it's now only a few days later) and, perhaps, a bit more wisdom.

Finally, since this RfC has started, I hope that whatever happens everyone involved learns something from it, this includes ME, the initiators and, call me an idealist if you will, the others.

Cordially yours, Shinobu 11:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for this (and to other editors who have written supportive things). I don't know if it's done to reply, but I'll just explain that I didn't block anyone for vandalism because, first, the question as to whether their persistent reversion of MoS edits counted as vandalism was being discussed (with many people disagreeing with me), and secondly, because I was too heavily involved with the articles to block them myself. --Mel Etitis  ( ??? ?????? ) 12:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by OmegaWikipedia
As one of the people that Mel has accused, I am a bit disappointed that people are choosing to believe his generalizations about editors he has been having conflict with, without looking at the other side. I have never admitted and I don't have a disregard for Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or accepted style like he claims.

In addition, other users like User:SlimVirgin are trying to claim that I am reverting spelling and grammatical errors on purpose. That is not true at all. When I first got caught up in an edit war with Mel, he kept reverting everything I did. Even after other admins User:Everyking and User:Violetriga warned him not to, he continued to roll back edits. As I was a relative newcomer at that time, and I saw an admin displaying this behavior, I believed it was the Wikipedia norm.

On We Belong Together, Mel raised issues about the spelling errors reverted in our edit wars. I explained to him that that was not my intention, I only wanted to roll back other changes and that they just got rolled back. I also explained to him that when he rolled back, he reverted my good edits. Nevertheless, after he made a point of talking about this, I made my best efforts not to roll back everything, but only the changes that I thought were needed.

Mel was still not happy with this, so User:SlimVirgin was called on to speak on his behalf. My main issues were about the spelling out of numbers as numerals and remix capitalization. I told SlimVirgin that the MoS allows numbers to be spelled out and provided links. I also explained to SlimVirgin that the remixes should be capitalized as they are titles (not descriptions like Mel was arguing for). Slim asked my sources to show that this was the industry norm, and I provided sources to her. After all of this, I thought the edit war would be over. But, Mel continued with this behavior. I didn't know what to do. I had believed that SlimVirgin was speaking on behalf of Mel. She suddenly disappeared and I was left to fend for myself again.

Another main issue I had with Mel concerned Since U Been Gone. We had a disagreement over the header. The issue was taken to RFC. Another user came in and provided a compromise. I thought the matter was over, and things were fine for a bit. But, somehow Mel suddenly decided to interpret the third party's comment differently. I was also in disbelief here. I wanted to compromise and work things out with Mel. But he's shown that even when a third party is involved and tries to compromise he wont' listen.

As Mel has mentioned, he has pointed out some MoS issues to me. I have taken note of them, and for that, I'm glad he pointed them out to me. However, I do not engage in reverting MoS edits on purpose. When he has pointed out things to me, I make my best efforts not to revert them, and I don't just revert them for fun like he is trying to claim. I do have some issues with two major things that I believe are covered by the MoS: the spelling out of numbers and remix capitalization. As I mentioned above, the MoS does allow numbers to be written out. Other users have pointed this out to him time and again especially on the talk page of We Belong Together. Mel, however, always mentions that he has manuals which say otherwise. Although his manuals may say otherwise, if the Wikipedia MoS says we can write out numbers as numerals, shouldn’t we be allowed to? My other issue, as mentioned above, is the remix capitalization. If Mel is trying to claim that this is my "anti-MoS" edits, I have to disagree. I see the remix as an extension of the title of a song, and believe it should be capitalized where needed. He sees it as a description. As mentioned above, SlimVirgin asked for proof that this was the industry standard, and I provided it to her. However, Mel continued to revert this even after I provided proof and justification.

It has also been difficult to talk to Mel at times, because he can be very rude and insulting at times. Like User:Kelly Martin stated, please don’t bite newcomers. I've had disagreements with people in the past. In fact, I'm having one right now with User:Hoary. Even though we disagree on almost everything, he has been very polite and courteous and has talked to me with respect. It was hard for me to talk to Mel, when he kept insulting me, and speaking to me in a tone that I felt was derogatory. At one point he even said to me something along the lines of "you're not going to make a lot of friends here" and labeled me as a "pop music editor in concert". I found these terms very insulting and offensive and almost as a personal attack. He has done with this with other users too as User:DrippingInk has mentioned. If he had an issue with my edits, that's fine. Please talk to me like Hoary, but nice about it. But it is hard to talk to someone who makes you feel uncomfortable with his insults.

With that all said and done,. I don't want to wish any bad will onto others. Yes, we've had our fights in the past, and maybe I'm just naive, but I hope we can all work this out peacefully. I never wanted it to escalate to this point, but as I mentioned in two previous attempts to resolve, Mel just ignored the third party's opinions. don’t want to be a dreamer either. At one point I have asked him if we could try to start on a new leaf and he stated that he was not interested in olive branches. As I've mentioned if Mel continues to ignore third opinions who try to help and compromise, I see no choice but to carry on with this RFC and any further options that may entail.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

 * 1) Anittas 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Very well stated. I didn't have the patience to explain this to the community; regardless, those people who are on his side don't care how Mel treats us. To them, we are filth.
 * 2) Winnermario 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) The above are the facts. It appears that the users who are backing up Mel Etitis are using Anittas's, OmegaWikipedia's, DrippingInk's and my fury and anger against us to support him. For example, check out the talk page where DrippingInk made a comment, but User:SlimVirgin and User:Kelly Martin used his fury against him to make it look like he was the criminal when it was Mel Etitis who insulted DrippingInk. This is unacceptable and makes us look like the criminals when we are not.

Addendum (Just for Clarification)
Just for clarification because it was brought up by elsewhere - by spelling out numbers as numerals, I meant as #57 or No. 57 instead of number fifty-seven. Also by remix capitalization, I meant proper capitalization to the remix portion of a song's title (like "Honey (Remix)" instead of "Honey" (remix).) OmegaWikipedia 05:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Inside view by Mel Etitis
(I didn't want to add this to my response, because people had already signed that.)

A number of editors have referred to the dreadful fact that I reverted with no attempt to explain my position, or to engage in discussion with those whose edits I reverted. It may be dreadful, but it's not a fact. This business has been rolling on for at least three months, during which time I have not only raised the issues via RfCs on articles and appeals to other admins (via Administrators' noticeboard and Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) to look at the situation and help to resolve it, but spent a great deal of time and effort trying to explain the issues and to reason with those who were persistently reverting my edits wholesale. The following are examples (not an exhaustive record) of my attempts with just two of those involved:

 * Winnermario (with interjections from OmegaWikipedia):, , , , , etc.
 * OmegaWikipedia (with interjections from DrippingInk, and with some warnings as well as explanations, as OmegaWikipedia has been by far the worst and most persistent offender, if not as hysterical as Anittas or even Winnermario):, , , , , etc.

If those who are (often with expressions of regret) now condemning me had responded to my appeals for help over the last few months, things wouldn't have reached this state. Instead I found myself almost completely ignored by other admins and experienced editors (with some notable exceptions), virtually single-handedly trying to bring Wikipedia conventions, guidelines, and policy to a large number of articles that were aggressively defended against change by a small group of editors who claimed ownership.

I should add that I had stopped reverting before this RfC was brought, in an attempt to cool things down and make discussion more likely (despite my earlier experiences); the result has been that the handful of editors involved have gleefully reverted all the articles, and have made no effort to discuss the issues. (See .) In their minds they've clearly won. If they have, then Wikipedia, not I, has lost. --Mel Etitis ( ??? ?????? ) 11:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

endorsement
 * 1) Don't know whether this one has an endorsement section, anyway I started one --Francis Schonken 18:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) --Doc (?) 23:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Edit wars are harmful, but Mel has been pretty transparent about what he doing (unlike some others) and has acted in good faith. He has tried to broaden the dispute out by involving others - it's just a pity no-one responded to the plea.
 * 4) FeloniousMonk 02:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC) per Doc
 * 5) Guettarda 05:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Monicasdude 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) --Duk 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Volatile 18:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Calton | Talk 02:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Don Diego 12:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Extraordinary Machine 22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by FuriousFreddy
I've had a front-row seat to this whole thing, and it is my strong conviction that this RFC was not a good idea. The primary reason for this are the responses and reactions of some of the disgruntled editor, upset that someone was attempting to make them follow the rules. True, breaking the 3RR was a mistake, but, at the same time, ME got next-to-no backup from the other administrators. That doesn't excuse it or allow it, but it helps to explain it.

The pop music section of the Wikipedia has become something akin to a hidden hell over the past year, dominated by editors who feel that their work shouldn't be changed simply because it is their work. A lot of them are presumptive and jumpy (I presume, perhaps incorrectly, many of them to be young people), but the bulk of them do not understand many of the basic rules and general operations procedures of the Wikipedia. Mel is not the only one who's had to deal with the stress: I've "almost" hung it up and quit several times myself because of the same problem. I've spoken with one of the editors in question,, extensively; the conversations went from cordial to arguments, and eventually resolved themselves in an AIM discussion (at two a clock in the morning on a workday, yet). Just from talking with him, I understand that the other editors' aren't making their edits out of spite; they simply don't understand the principles of Wikipedia in general. That doesn't make them bad people; it makes them uninformed. They seem to have just happened upon the site and decided to form rules of their own, since (for a long time) no one did anything about it. These editors are accusing Mel of "istreating" them and of holding some sorts of personal vendettas against them. Neither is true; he was only acting against their actions, and not their characters in general.

One thin I don't understand is the lack of attention from many other moderators in trying to push this (an entire section of the encyclopedia, at least 1000 articles in number) towards improvement, cleanup, and pruning. Is it intellectual bias towards something "trivial" like pop music? Yes, while there are far more important subjects to write about, it doesn't look good to have hundreds of poorly written, bloated, biased articles that go against the very spirit of Wikipedia with absolutely nothing being done, save the actions of one person, by the administration of the website.

Mel dedicated himself to cleaning up a lot of the pop music articles, in a (perhaps fruitless) attempt to keep Wikipedia from devolving into the free fansite hosting service it inches towards every day. In a situation like that, it is obvious that stress can get to a person. However, the only evidence of an "attack" is quite shaky (Mel's comment to DrippingInk hardly reads as an attack; he seems to generally think that English is not DrippingInk's primary language. If it is, then I'm sure he didn't mean to insult anyone).

Basically, an RfC was obviously not the right way to resolve this. A group arbitration of some time (which still needs to be done) would have been a better option. Hopefully, instead of trying to punish someone who was trying to better Wikipedia, perhaps this RfC can draw attention to a serious problem with the project. As it stands now, the editors in question are winning because of (a) strength in numbers and (b) disinterest in the rest of the Wikipedian community in trying to deal with the issue.

As far as the reversions are concerned, numeral formatting and infobox arrangement are hardly things to start edit wars over, but it seems that is what happened, because a compromise seemed unlikely (the editors wanted their prose to stay the way they wanted it, and Mel seems to be an affecinado of properly formatted English). As a college professor, I would trust Mel's opinion on how to format text before I'd trust my own, but at the same time, I think maybe he should just let that one go. Although the way he's been formatting things is technically correct, you can't fight stubbornness with stubbornness. And that, really, is the only thing I think Mel has done wrong; he's let it get to the point where he had to be stubborn in order to do what needed to be done. However, it seems the only other thing to do that remained perfectly in line with policy (since requesting outside help didn't work) was to leave it alone, which also solves nothing.

So, here we are. This is one of those odd situations where someone did something wrong trying to correct worse wrongs. However, I think an RfC against Mel is an extreme reaction, especially when there are others who should (and, in some cases, would) have had RfC's filed against them. Anything beyond a warning would add to the extremity of this situation. In the case that Mel loses his admin powers or is banned, the general quality and verifiability of Wikipedia is going to degrade slowly. Mel's statement here, If they have, then Wikipedia, not I, has lost, speaks volumes of truth.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) --FuriousFreddy 02:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) FeloniousMonk 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Jkelly 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) I have one issue with Fred's comments: Many of the members involved have been here for as many as five months. They should have looked over the rules and guidelines at least once in all that time! In all earnestness, they should have looked over them before they began editing! Anyway, just my take on that. This RfC is completely unfounded in my opinion and questions the entire validity of WikiPedia itself. Volatile 19:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Like Volatile, I endorse these comments with reservations in Mel's favor. The conduct of the editors involved in the disputes with him is, in general, not conduct which will be modified by the course(s) of action the proponents of this RfC would prefer Mel follow. One of those editors, for example, responds to other editors' changes with messages like this: "I don't want to get into a revert war, but any superior additions of mine that are reverted will be changed back. It seems to me you're just getting sore because your efforts were improved upon" (and that is a relatively mild example). Fred's comments about the degeneration of the pop music component of Wikipedia are extremely well taken, and this RfC, which should not have been brought against the person whose misconduct, if any, was less serious by several orders of magnitude that the misconduct of the editors whose actions he disputed, appears likely to fuel the degeneration. Monicasdude 01:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Well said, clearly analysed, gets to the bottom of this mess.  Guettarda 22:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Ann Heneghan (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Extraordinary Machine 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:Chelseaboy
I salute Mel Etitis for his prodigious edit count and his passionate dedication to Wikipedia. However, I question whether he has the right temperament to be an administrator at this time. I think I have only come across him here. In that context, under the heading "Article Title", he was gently challenged for "a mild, but pretty clear cut instance, of admining in a dispute one is a party to. Surely preferable to have put up a protection request, like the rest of us mere mortals. Alai 04:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)". Despite frequent contributions to the page at that time, he did not respond to that criticism, which seems to have been well founded. On the same page, there was discussion about whether "public school" was used in Scotland in the same way that it is understood in England. All the Scottish contributors seemed to agree that it was not; Mel Etitis (and others, but Mel Etitis was particularly dismissive) disagreed. He asked for references, which were provided (including some by me). But Mel Etitis would never accept the validity of the contributions of the other editors on the point. He described the suggestion that there was a different Scottish understanding of the term as "insulting to the Scots". He somewhat bizarrely insisted that the Talk page contributions of Scottish users on how the term is used in Scotland amounted to "original research [which] doesn't have any weight here". When he was then referred to the Concise Oxford Dictionary to the same effect, he ignored the reference. Lower down on the Talk page (under the heading "Scottish "Public Schools": state schools"), references in support of the different Scottish usage were produced from the Oxford English Dictionary, from the use of the word inscribed in stone on public buildings, from the Education Act for Scotland of 1872, from a Scottish Executive Education Department press release in 2002 and from a Scottish Executive consultation document in 2005. Mel Etitis dismissed all of this as "little more than "I'm Scottish and I'm telling you" which did nothing to advance the discussion. On 27 September 2005 he escalated the matter by slapping an offensive "factual accuracy disputed" template on the whole article (which I removed):  this was a slur on the work of many editors (see the "Disputed" heading on the talk page referenced above).  I believe that he raised the temperature, personalised the discussion and dismissed the useful and constructive contributions of others in a manner which did not help the improvement of the article.  His status as administrator sent a bad message about Wikipedia to someone like myself who is relatively new to it.  I was very troubled by the whole episode and it taught me a lot about how Wikipedia should not work. Chelseaboy 21:30, 30 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.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dirty Wall

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The Dirty Wall
Nonsense, vanity, Google does not return anything significant about it. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete non-notable vanity (and former attack) article. --best, kevin · · · Kzollman | Talk · · · 03:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete definently non-notable vanity. --W.marsh 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep, schools are notable and the school would not be complete without this wall (delete). Gazpacho 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No one may vote twice; reading Gazpacho's intent from the boldfacing, I strike his first vote. Xoloz 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. If schools are inherently notable, aren't pieces of schools also inherently notable as well? Voyager640 20:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable.--inks T 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless the school community is so proud of the garbage-covered wall that they want to merge the information into an article about the school itself ... I doubt it. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless verified/cited; almost certainly a hoax or vanity. (Facile comments in re: a legitimate debate (schools) are misplaced, and really effing unnecessary, btw.) Eaglizard 09:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete As I did before when ol' RickK tried this trick, I ask whether completely sarcastic votes constitute "bad-faith", and if so, whether they may be stricken? Xoloz 16:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Isser Harel

Children
Please cite sources if changing this information. According to the Hebrew-language article, and supported by his obituary in The Guardian, Isser Harel had a daughter. There's no mention of any other children. Also, please do not claim without sources that anyone has committed any crime. --Hoziron 12:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem with References section
There are only two references shown, as but neither of these "references" point to the actual newspaper stories, presumably of Harel's obituary. Instead they simply link to Wikipedia's own entries on Daily Telegraph (London) and The Independent (London) as newspapers in general.
 * 1.^ a b "Israeli spymaster led ‘Operation Eichmann’", Daily Telegraph (London), 19 February 2003
 * 2.^ a b c Isser Harel: Israeli spymaster who abducted Eichmann, The Independent (London), Thursday, 20 February 2003

That means that nothing in this article is properly referenced. At least the Guardian obituary provided above in the 2005 Children section of this Talk page is a real reference. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

time before death?
his last period? not existing? death - nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.129.198 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Isser Harel


text:
WOFX

WOFX may refer to:

 * WOFX (AM), a radio station (980 AM) licensed to Troy, New York, United States
 * WOFX-FM, a radio station (92.5 FM) licensed to Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

title: WOFX


text: File:Trapt someone in control cover.jpg

title: File:Trapt someone in control cover.jpg


text:
Category:United States senators from Mississippi

People who have represented the state of Mississippi in the United States Senate.


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability/Future projects

History page table idea
Here's an example from my table idea. (I'll put it here beause it's very rough since I have no clue about real coding):

Missing are the circles to select two edits to compare, and, as mentioned on the page, the cur/last stuff needs to be rewored more clearly. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I really hate to harp on you guys, but it seems rather ironic that you talk about "usability" - and then do nothing but remove particularly useful features. Please do not remove the circles - or expect a battle if you try without facing the community first. Ambi 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I should clarify, it wasn't my intention to remove the circles, it's just that I have no idea how to code to make them appear, the previous example is just an idea that needs someone with some knowledge to apply, circles and all. - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 21:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, I'm sorry. What is the difference then? Ambi 06:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Among other things, the tabular arrangement would change the way edit summaries wrap to the next line. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, that would be a good thing. Ambi 01:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It will also clarify what everything means instead of that legend. Or at least they will be clear if someone can come up with something beter than "cur" and "lat". - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 02:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Diff" might be a better term than "last." That seems to be the word people actually use. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

...

How about that? I think that omitting the full words for the sake of 55 pixels (rent+eding) in width is silly. I made "select" small, and so that it complies with the button. For consistency, I made smaller, and expanded "compare to..." to "compare to ? revision". –MT 09:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Very nice. How is something like this implemented? Is it a Mediwikispace page to edit or does a developer have to deal with it? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 16:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I imagine that a developer would have to do it, but it should be a rather simple change (replacing ul with table+th*6, and the spans/li with td). And the data belongs in a table regardless, not an unordered list. "minor change" could be marked as it is now, or the shade of the link could be paler, not bold, or italic. (Added bold and changed ? to ... in the example.) The recent changes page should take up the same format (it may be that it would have to). Entries marked deletion log should merge (span) the two first columns and should have [] brackets around them. The third and fourth columns may not be displayed at all. We should get some community input and then see what happens. –MT 17:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, this is good; maybe replace "preceding" with "prior"? Ideally those columns will be as short as possible; the more space for the edit summary the better, since some edit summaries will likely occupy 2/3/4 lines. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

 * How about this?:

[Compare selected versions] [Compare selected versions]

 * I don't think that we should worry about how much space it takes up. Even if we do take up more space even once every 10 edits (most edits, unfortunately, don't even use summaries), then it's only a loss of the height of a line. I think clarity is more important. And after shortening it just now, it takes up only about | this | much more space. The "(Latest | Earliest) View (pre..." section needs to be made a bit more clear as well. –MT 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like it, although I don't know where to go with it from here, other than throwing it out to the mailing list and seeing who picks it up. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


text:
Athumani S. Janguo

Athuman Saidi Minshehe Janguo (born December 5, 1936) is a Tanzanian politician. He is a former member of both the National Assembly of Tanzania and the African Union's Pan-African Parliament. As a Tanzanian member of parliament, his constituency was Kisarawe and he was a member of the Parliamentary Privileges, Ethics and Powers Committee. Janguo is a former Director General of the Tanzania Harbour Authority (TPA).

title: Athumani S. Janguo


text:
Talk:Self-organized criticality

Major rewrite
I've just made a major (read: total:-) rewrite of the page. Hope I haven't trodden on any toes; I just felt that not only did the page need expanding but that I could put some of the points in earlier versions better in my own words. Feel free to flame me on my talk page if offended. I do have quite a few SOC-related research interests, so it's possible some aspects of my rewrite may be too POV (though I've tried to avoid it). Advice on this appreciated.

Although broadly my aim was just to give an expanded picture, I have deliberately removed certain things said in the previous version. Here's a list of what and why:

 * The theory of self-organized criticality (SOC) claims that whenever a self-organizing dynamical system is open or dissipative, it exhibits critical (scale-invariant) behaviour similar to that displayed by static systems undergoing a second-order phase transition. — I don't think any of the serious proponents of SOC have suggested that "whenever" anything.  But in any case this particular statement is not true.  Example: take the BTW sandpile model and introduce dissipation into the local exchanges.  It satisfies all the conditions listed in this "definition" but isn't critical.

 * Examples include avalanches e.g. in sandpiles  — This is a confusion of the sandpile/avalanche metaphor to visualise SOC models, and the actual real case of avalanches (whether in sand or other materials).  In fact the results from avalanche experiments are pretty ambiguous (see e.g. Turcotte's 1999 review).

 * This is related to the self-organization of cellular automata.  — This is misleading.  Many cellular automata display interesting emergent properties but most are not self-organizing.  Example: Conway's Game of Life displays emergent complexity, but change the rules even slightly and it significantly changes the behaviour of the system.  Self-organization implies robustness with respect to design variables.

I have expanded the reference list but deleted the link to Amazon since I don't think it's our job to tell people what bookshop to go to. However, I do plan to update the reference section so that all references to scientific papers have a link to the online copy of the article (original and preprint, where possible).

I plan to make a couple of further updates in the near future, most importantly, to give one or two examples of SOC algorithms (I'm thinking BTW sandpile and Bak-Sneppen evolution model). When I really have time (not now, not now) I'll try to add some handy graphics to help readers visualise what's going on and to show examples of the sorts of scale-invariance that result.

Comments eagerly awaited! Peace and love, — WebDrake 03:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

-

Great work, WebDrake! I've done a minor copy-edit, but I think your article is excellent.

Although it's correct as it applies to what was written, I don't entirely agree with your comment above on no one asserting "whenever": I think Per Bak's How Nature Works was criticised, at least initially, for his claims about the ubiquity of power laws (see for a sample along these lines). But that's a small point. Thanks for your new version. -- JimR 06:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much for the nice compliments. Copy edits are always welcome. :-)

 * To the issue you raised, I think the criticism of PB was that it was perceived that he had claimed that whenever a natural system displays power laws, it is a sign of SOC, though I don't think he actually said or meant that; what he said was that the widespread occurence of scale invariant structures in nature pointed to a common dynamical mechanism (for which SOC was a viable candidate). There is an objection to this argument in the review you cite, which points out that many quantities follow a Bell curve (e.g. IQ and height) yet no one would claim these have a common dynamical origin.  But actually, I think they do — it's just that these dynamics are so general that they can have vastly different physical embodiments.

 * Others interpreted the title of his book as being a claim to have explained everything (whereas I read it more as being a call to arms to start thinking about the question of "How Nature Works", with SOC being an exciting example of how to do so). Much of the criticism I've read of him seems to stem more from not reading or understanding what he said (probably often because they were so put off by his willingness to make blunt criticisms of others), and reading things into his words that aren't actually there.

 * To the direct issue of why I objected to the phrase in the earlier article, AFAIK neither Bak nor anyone else made any sort of "whenever" claims about what kinds of dynamics would display SOC. (Probably this is one of the reasons why Jensen's (1998) acronym of SDIDT [Slowly Driven Interaction Dominated Threshold] systems is not widely used, apart from unwieldiness.  It gives you an idea of where SOC may emerge, but doesn't guarantee it.)  Nobody has given any sort of "bottom-up" definition of SOC along the lines of "SOC occurs whenever the dynamics are like this" — but the phrase I objected to outlined SOC along those lines. — WebDrake 20:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Further to the above, I've also slightly revised one of the paragraphs JimR edited, the 2nd para of the Overview, since I didn't quite feel comfortable with the way that was rephrased (sorry:-). Also, in the 3rd para, I was not comfortable with the removal of the word "some" from "some reservations" regarding SOC with local dissipation. The reservations are very minor and do not concern SOC as a whole, just some types of dynamics; SOC with local dissipation has not really been contentious in the scientific literature for the last 10+ years. So I put "minor" in brackets before the word reservations. WebDrake 22:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I like "(minor) reservations". My edits were intended as stylistic not scientific: I only removed the "some" to avoid a second occurrence of that word in close proximity.  Ditto for "possible" in the previous paragraph, but you've put that back :-)

 * With regard to criticisms of Bak, I think they may have arisen partly because of a lack of clarity in How Nature Works: as far as I remember, at no stage does he give an explicit definition of SOC — nor as you point out above did he specifically state a hypothesis that untuned scale invariance is always the consequence of a particular mechanism. On the other hand, his many examples of systems building to criticality and then exhibiting a power law did seem to lead people to think he was asserting a theorem of sorts — which they disagreed with.  In other words, as you say, they perceived he was asserting a "whenever" statement.  It would of course be nice if there were a theorem :-)

 * The first sentence of your article does give a clear "top down" definition of SOC; on the other hand it doesn't posit a specific "bottom up" mechanism. So it's not likely to meet the same criticisms.  However, you do call it a "mechanism" in a couple of places further down, without going into details of what the mechanism is.  Maybe that can be addressed.  -- JimR 11:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I understand your issue over "SOC as mechanism".  I'll think about it and how to phrase things better.  "Self-organized criticality" and "self-organized critical dynamics" tend to be used interchangeably in the literature, which is the context in which I was writing the paragraphs you refer to.  Probably the best thing is to do a slight rewrite of the opening paragraph.  After all, in the sense of SOC as a description of theoretical models, it is pretty much proven for at least some of them that the critical point of the system is an attractor.  So I'm probably wrong to give a definition which refers just to the observed phenomena. — WebDrake 23:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, see what you make of the updated version of the intro. I've also added links to online copies of all journal articles referenced. :-) — WebDrake 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it! The definition as "having a critical point attractor" is elegant and succinct. You then relate the attractor to the absence of tuning, and the scale invariance to the criticality, sensibly leaving the details about power laws and fractals till later. The new second paragraph then explicitly acknowledges the lack of a general theorem or guarantee (so far), thus drawing the teeth of the criticisms directed against (mis?)perceptions of Bak's implications. It's good. -- JimR 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Great. Thanks for the little typographical/wiki link edits, that's been really helpful.  I think we've got both intro and overview pretty sorted now. :-D

 * The next few things I want to do are to write up a couple of models as examples of SOC dynamics (I think BTW sandpile and Bak-Sneppen evolution model are good choices). I'd also like to have a hack at the self-organization and power law articles, but I'd like to chat a bit more with the existing writers on that since I think any major changes there would be more likely to cause a ruckus — self-organization, at least, is much more disputed and less well-defined than SOC.  I guess you know the people who have worked on that stuff somewhat, so do you reckon you could bounce them into some discussion?  (Get them to look over this article too.:-) Best, — WebDrake 16:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the feedback, WebDrake. You have good plans, but I'll respond on your talk page since we're going off the SOC topic.  -- JimR 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Examples of SOC dynamics
I've added a section on examples of SOC dynamics, with links to other pages rather than take up a load more room here. That can also allow for the individual model pages to get relatively lengthy. I've created the model pages as stubs so if anyone wants to write them, go for it! :-) — WebDrake 02:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Further related pages
I've just created a stub page for the Oslo ricepile experiment, with a reference to the paper published in Nature.

In addition we need to create pages on the Gutenberg-Richter law and the Omori law for earthquakes.

Further ideas welcome! — WebDrake 23:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
Now that Category:Self-organization exists and it is a subcategory of most of the categories Self-organized criticality is in, what is the rationale for keeping SOC in additional categories? Karol 07:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You'll have to guide me on this since I'm a relative novice to the question of how and why categories should be used. My choice was related to two points: (a) is it appropriately classified? and (b) if someone is browsing through category lists, how easy is it to discover relevant and interesting material?

 * Essentially my rationale is that while classification is important, it is also important that material be highlighted as soon as it becomes relevant — else there's a danger of users having to descend through an endless tree of categories.

 * It's for the latter reason I decided to include the higher-level categories in SOC since I felt that someone who is interested in SOC will not necessarily be first and foremost interested in the feature of self-organization. There's also the question of the genealogy of SOC being a bit different since for example it's not too highly related to chemistry or cybernetics.

 * But I'll follow your guidance on this. :-) FWIW I don't think limiting SOC to Category:Fractals and Category:Self-organization would be too inappropriate.  — WebDrake 13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE: After thinking about this further I've removed several of the higher categories. The remaining ones are Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics, Category:Fractals and Category:Self-organization. I know that the first of these is a parent category of self-organization, but I think in this context it's important, since its use as an applied and interdisciplinary physics theory is one of the key aspects of SOC. Good compromise? — WebDrake 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not aware of the most common way categories are used, but I doubt that alot of people just browse them and look for things to read (I don't, unless I get really bored :D). I think it is more natural to enter a category from one of the pages it contains, with the aim of seeing what else it contains. Returning to the case at hand, the categories you had before and the ones that are there now seem quite fine - I say this because they are more or less consistent and because these categories aren't yet overloaded (I am very keen only on keeping Category:Physics slim for now). Also, as it is now, self-organization itself seems to be organized more poorly than SOC (so many categories!). One more note - SOC is probably much used in phase transition studies (I think so only, 'cuase it's not my field), but it's not related to Category:Phase changes in any way right now. Karol 20:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Small retrospect. I fear you may have felt some pressure from my side as to the categorization of SOC. After removing it from Category:Physics, I only meant to notice that it might not be optimal. I write this, because I am grateful that you improved the article. After all, categorization is a second hand issue compared to the article itself. Karol 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Naah, no pressure was felt. I listened to your reasoning and felt it had merit; your contributions have been useful both for the article and for me as a new Wikipedian.  Glad you like what the article has become! :-) — WebDrake 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S. "Phase changes" is probably not the best place for SOC. The critical phenomena associated with phase transitions are kind of the opposite of SOC — in a phase transition the critical point is only reached by highly accurate tuning of a control parameter, but in SOC it's an attractor and robust with respect to parameters.  If there was a "Critical point phenomena" category, that would be a good one. WebDrake 00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Applied and interdisciplinary physics
To repeat the above (since some people keep trying to remove it), it is understood that Category:Applied and interdisciplinary physics is a parent category of Category:Self-organization. The choice is deliberate. SOC is clearly related to self-organization, but is not limited to that area of interest: it has wide applications in interdisciplinary studies. The categories are chosen to reflect both these aspects.

If you want to remove the category, please give a good reason on these talk pages first. —WebDrake 13:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"The Neo effect"??
Where did the comment come from that SOC is sometimes referred to as "the Neo effect"? I've never heard of this term and was unable to find any reference to links with SOC except the comment in this article. So, I've removed it for now, but if anyone can convince me otherwise, I'll let it be put back in. —WebDrake 09:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Smalley et al. (1985) and Katz (1986) papers
Can the person who made these edits please identify themselves and give some justification for this edit?

I am going to rewrite these edits on the following grounds:
 * 1) This article is about self-organized criticality, not the sandpile model.  The concept of SOC was put forward by BTW and not before.
 * 2) The edits suggest bad faith on the part of BTW, which I see no reason to assume.
 * 3) I actually have the Smalley et al. and Katz papers, and it's not at all clear that the models are identical.  Similar, yes.
 * 4) Turcotte wrote a review of self-organized criticality, referenced in the article, and he does not even mention the papers in question.  Given that he was a co-author on the former, you'd think he might have done so if there was really a priority question.

I agree that we could mention, in the discussion of the history, that some earlier similar models to the sandpile model had been published. —WebDrake 12:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Further to above, I have reverted the introduction but added some extra material elsewhere. —WebDrake 13:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bak-Sneppen references
My thanks to the anonymous contributor who added the Bak-Sneppen references. I'm going to move the Sneppen interface depinning reference to Bak-Sneppen model where it is more appropriate. The Bak-Sneppen reference itself I think should stay as it represents the introduction of the second general kind of SOC dynamics: extremal models as opposed to threshold/avalanche models. —WebDrake 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Precursors
I believe there were interesting precursors of Bak's first SOC models. I think one of them was by Sue Coppersmith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.40.183 (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Integrate and Fire Neuron Network with SOC properties - References?
Dear Webdrake, could you complete the model section with a literature reference on SOC in networks of IaF neurons. Many thanks.

Inappropriately authoritative tones in Criticism section
Both paragraphs in the section on Criticism seem to be excessive in their tone.

The first starts "There is a debate on the relevance of SOC theory to the real world." and then proceeds to offer a single example about sand which seems like an inappropriate synecdoche.

The second paragraph then boldly states that "These criticisms are obsolete." and again, describes a single example of a physical system which SOC models well.

These are both hasty generalizations (the second much more so than the first) and they smell a little bit of ego. --2601:19B:801:5180:0:0:0:2B05 (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Contribution of Infographics
If there is a way to create infographics to better illustrate the concepts. I have a graphics designer who could help with visualization. I am an autodidact who just two year dago iscovered Complex System theory and I fell in love with sthe cientific field. My hope is to faciliate a better understandingf the field for the public. I would also love to chat with people who created the article to interview them and highlight the articles and the people behind them. o f Able D. Paryon (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Self-organized criticality


text:
Oka (Angara)

The Oka (Ока, Аха) is a river in Siberia, left tributary of the Angara. It is 630 km long, and has a drainage basin of 34000 km2.

Course
It originates in the Oka Lake, Oka Plateau, Sayan Mountains at the western end of Buryatia. It flows roughly northwestwards with the Bolshoy Sayan to the southwest. After it bends northeastwards the river flows between the Kropotkin Range and the Belskye Goltsy (Бельские Гольцы). After the Khoyto-Oka tributary joins it from the left it enters Irkutsk Oblast and flows in a roughly more northern direction. Finally the Oka discharges into the Bratsk reservoir.

title: Oka (Angara)


text:
Bristle-spined rat

The bristle-spined rat (Chaetomys subspinosus) is an arboreal rodent from the Atlantic forest in eastern Brazil. Also known as the bristle-spined porcupine or thin-spined porcupine, it is the only member of the genus Chaetomys and the subfamily Chaetomyinae. It was officially described in 1818, but rarely sighted since, until December 1986, when two specimens - one a pregnant female - were found in the vicinity of Valencia in Bahia. Since then it has been recorded at several localities in eastern Brazil, from Sergipe to Espírito Santo (there are no recent records from Rio de Janeiro), but it remains rare and threatened due to habitat loss, poaching and roadkills.

Characteristics
Bristle-spined rats are named because the spines on the back are more bristle-like in texture than the spines on the rest of the body. They have long, naked tails which are not prehensile. Adult animals weigh around 1.3 kg.

Their skulls are unusual in several ways. The eye socket is almost completely surrounded by a ring of bone. Incisors are distinctly narrow. Overall, the animal displays a mix of New World porcupine cranial characters, spiny rat cranial characters, and characters that set it apart from all other rodents.

The bristle-spined rat is restricted to remnant forests and forest edges in the Atlantic coastal forests on the east coast of Brazil. Its habitat is dwindling rapidly and the species may be vulnerable to extinction. It is classified as vulnerable by IUCN and endangered by USDI.

Taxonomic controversy
No consensus has been reached as to the taxonomic position of Chaetomys. It is commonly placed with the New World porcupines in the family Erethizontidae or with the spiny rats the family Echimyidae. Both are South American hystricognaths with hairs modified as spines or quills. Chaetomys has more highly developed spines than the spiny rats, but less developed than the porcupines. Characteristics of the premolar suggest that it belongs with the Echimyidae, but characteristics of the incisor enamel suggest that it belongs in the Erethizontidae.

Patterson and Pascual (1968), Patterson and Wood (1982), Woods (1982, 1984, 1993) Patton and Reig (1989), Nowak (1999), and Carvalho (2000) support the inclusion of this animal in Echimyidae whereas Martin (1994), McKenna and Bell (1997), Carvalho and Salles (2004), and Woods and Kilpatrick (2005) argue that it belongs in Erethizontidae. Emmons (2005) mentions the family Chaetomyidae without much further comment except to exclude it from Echimyidae.

A molecular phylogeny based on the mitochondrial gene coding for cytochrome b combined to karyological evidence actually suggests that Chaetomys is more closely related to the Erethizontidae than to the Echimyidae, although it branches as the sister group to the rest of the Erethizontidae.

title: Bristle-spined rat


text:
Philippe Christanval

Philippe Charles Lucien Christanval (born 31 August 1978) is a French former professional footballer who played as a centre-back. During his career, he played for Monaco, Barcelona, Marseille and Fulham and earned six full international caps with the France national team, as well as selection to the 2002 FIFA World Cup.

Early life
Christanval was born in Paris.

Monaco
Christanval's career began at AS Monaco in 1999, where he made 81 appearances, scoring one goal. They won the 1999–2000 league title, earning him the title of Young Player of the Year, and he made several UEFA Champions League appearances. In January 2001, it was reported that Monaco were considering exchanging him for Frank LeBoeuf of Chelsea.

Barcelona and Marseille
Christanval was then signed by Barcelona of Spain's La Liga for a £6.5 million fee in June 2001, the team he supported as a child. After being released from Barcelona in 2003, he joined Marseille on 18 July on a four-year contract. They reached the 2004 UEFA Cup Final in his first season, but he was an unused substitute as they lost 2–0 to Valencia.

Fulham
After two weeks on trial at Arsenal, their manager Arsène Wenger opted not to sign Christanval. He then joined another Premier League team from across London, Fulham, on 9 September 2005. Upon his signing, manager Chris Coleman stated:

""He can be captain for the next five years if he shows the same consistency and level of performance.""

In his first appearances at Fulham, he found himself playing in defensive midfield with Papa Bouba Diop. He was later moved back to his typical position. His only Premier League goal was a late equaliser in a 3–3 draw with West Ham United on 13 January 2007.

In the 2007–08 season he made a single substitute appearance. At the end of the season, Christanval was released by Fulham and was offered a trial with Premier League club Blackburn Rovers. On 9 April 2009, Christanval retired from football, having been unable to find a new club.

International career
Christanval was part of the France squad at the 1997 FIFA World Youth Championship.

He made his full debut on 7 October 2000, in a 0–0 friendly draw away to South Africa. Christanval played four more friendlies in 2002 before his last appearance, a 2–1 away win against Cyprus in qualification for UEFA Euro 2004. He was selected for the 2002 FIFA World Cup but did not enter the field of play.

Personal life
An artificial pitch in his native Sarcelles was named after Christanval.

Honours
Monaco
 * Division 1: 1999–2000
 * Trophée des Champions: 2000

Marseille
 * UEFA Cup runner-up: 2003–04

Individual
 * UNFP Ligue 1 Young Player of the Year: 2000

title: Philippe Christanval


text: Category:Brass quintets

title: Category:Brass quintets


text:
Costas Mandylor

Costas Mandylor (born Costas Theodosopoulos; 3 September 1965) is an Australian actor. He is best known for his roles as Kenny Lacos in Picket Fences and Mark Hoffman in the Saw films.

Early life
Costas Theodosopoulos was born on 3 September 1965 in Melbourne, Australia to Greek immigrants Louise Theodosopoulos, and Yannis Theodosopoulos, a taxi driver. His brother is actor Louis Mandylor. Mandylor grew up in St Kilda and South Melbourne, and moved to the United States in 1987 where he started taking acting lessons. He was initially unable to find any work acting and had to work any job available. He took a version of his mother's maiden name, citing his real name in Greek being too long.

Career
Mandylor's first major role was in the 1989 film Triumph of the Spirit playing a European Jew, which was filmed at the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. He returned to Los Angeles meeting director Oliver Stone and auditioned and got the role of an Italian count in The Doors (1991). Mandylor landed a leading role in Mobsters playing Mafia boss Frank Costello. He went mentally prepared for the role, telling the Los Angeles Times, "It was interesting that I got that part, because I felt tuned in to gangsters, it was a genre I'd read a lot. When I was 13, I got a job as a dishwasher in a Melbourne nightclub and saw everything there, real gangsters, and had met characters who were dangerous people from an underground world." In 1992, he had a lead role on the CBS television drama, Picket Fences, playing officer Kenny Lacos until the show ended in 1996. Mandylor also had a lead role in the Saw films as Detective Mark Hoffman, in Saw III (2006), Saw IV (2007), Saw V (2008), Saw VI (2009) and Saw 3D (2010). He also made a cameo appearance in Saw X (2023).

Personal life
Mandylor played professional football/soccer in Europe until suffering shin splints. In 1991, he was chosen by People as one of the "50 Most Beautiful People in the world".

Mandylor married Talisa Soto in May 1997; they divorced in 2000.

title: Costas Mandylor