User talk:Mel Etitis/Discussion from noticeboard
(Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard)
I'd be very grateful if someone could explain to Mr Tan (talk · contribs) that it's not acceptable to place the "cleanup" template on Zanskar on the grounds that he thinks that it should be organised differently, and that it contains (unspecified, and so far as I can see nonexistent) grammatical errors. He won't listen to me – in fact, he won't listen to anybody – and I know that a few admins have already tangled with him and beat a hasty and sensible retreat, but who knows, someone might do what everyone else has failed to (see also the RfC on him).
I've asked three members of the arbcom if they think that a request for arbitration would be suitable, but none of them has responded. I may have to go that route, and perhaps my reluctance is silly. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I think that Mel meant this RFC. -Frazzydee|✍ 14:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks — yes, I've corrected it in my message. I've decided to take the plunge, and am beginning the long and painful process of working out how to request arbitration, using a temp page in my User space (I've never done it before, and had hoped that I'd never had to). In the meantime, I'd still be grateful for any help in trying to get through to Mr Tan without arbitration. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article needs cleanup, and all I needed is some peace and quiet, and Mel to respect on my decision. See Talk:Zanskar, and Joseon dynasty to gage as a comparison of its standard. Much of its content, however, is not appropriately classified, and content restructing is badly needed. Unless the other users in commenting my opinion can be called back, I do not see why he should prevent me from editing.
- I do not see why he should prevent me from editing. Because of your demonstratable lack of competence to do so, coupled with your inability to recognize said lack of competence, perhaps? Having done some small repair work in the wake of your "cleaning up", and seeing how you managed to munge the simplest of edits in March Fong Eu, Tony Miller, and Jerry Brown, I thoroughly understand Mel Etitis's frustration.
- As for your self-assessment of your skills, see Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999), "Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.[1] --Calton | Talk 16:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Having decided that arbitration is the only route left, I created a temporary page in my User space in order to experiment and develop my request. Within minutes, Mr Tan had started adding his comments to it, and continued to do so after I'd asked him to stop. He then created a page in my User space (User talk:Mel Etitis/Arbtan), without even telling me, and added his comments there; he's now wiped it. His antics are driving me (and other editors) to distraction; could someone else at least try to get through to him? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the first place, I'm the one frustrated. Much of his edits are merely plain reverts, often not elaborating his reasons why. I agree to your suggestion (Calton), but just look at his attitude--extremely childish for a fifty-year-old professor versus a young teen.
See [2] for more information. Analyse if his reverts and what he says Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. is fair.
- He's now re-added comments to the page that he's created in my User space... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that he thinks that it is the formal arbitration request and does not understand that it is just a draft that has not be submitted as yet. I've left a comment on his talk page to try and explain this. --khaosworks 16:52, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
As you'll have seen, I'd already done that, but either he still doesn't understand, or he doesn't care. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it may take a while to sink in. He saw the "Please do not edit" boilerplate on the top of your draft as provocation. Anyway, I think he's stopped now. I hope. --khaosworks 17:19, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I know how Mel and Mr. Tan think about the articles now, but surely general concencus by other users shows the direction in which these articles should go? Mgm|(talk) 19:03, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, so far every other editor on Zanskar has agreed that Mr Tan's edits are disruptive, poor quality, and unnecessary — but that's not exactly my point here. I'm concerned with his insistence on placing a "cleanup" template on the article for no good rason. he's been doing this on and off (sometimes using a "gcheck" template for variety) for some time. Originally it was clearly to retaliate against my placing "copyedit" on a couple of pages that he was editing; I'm really not sure why he's doing it now. He claims that it's because the article is poorly structured (by which he means that it's not structured in the same way as another article that he likes), but not only is that insufficient grounds in itself, his proposed changes have been, as I say, rejected by every other editor involved with the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not exactly a mediator yet, but would you guys be willing to step into mediation on this? I think an agreement on structure could be possible here. Mgm|(talk) 08:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Interruption? What I mean is that the article genuinely needs restructuring. It is because of his reverts that I have to do it on-and-off, fearing that he would revert all the changes. If I were disruptive, why should I not disrupt other pages as well, instead specifically targeting on this one? Many users have shown a strong dislike on him, notably User:THE KING. He does his reverts without giving proper explanations,[3], and it should be noted that giving explanations to first-time, or second-time reverts should be a real-world law, in view of outrage and confusion by other users. But he didn't, only until I have to prompt him repeatedly. Mr Tan 12:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tan
- What I mean is that the article genuinely needs restructuring. Sez you -- and you alone, really.
- ...fearing that he would revert all the changes. The proper verb, given your track record, is "repair", nor "revert". --Calton | Talk 13:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So what? If all of you want consensus, but the thing is wrong itself in reality, this makes wikipediaimperfect. And furthermore, I haven't done the thing yet, I wonder what ridiculous things you all are thinking about. Mr Tan 15:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)User:Mr Tan
- but the thing is wrong itself in reality. Precisely. It's not about consensus, really, but about competence. And you, Mr. Tan, are not. Not competent. Unskilled. Not up to it. Objectively and demonstratably unqualified to "clean up" any text. The marvel is why, in the face of all available evidence, you believe yourself proficient in English editing. You've been given "proper explanations" before -- detailed explanations, even -- which you have completely ignored. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See my comments at Talk:Zanskar. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)