Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence provided by A Link to the Past

Basically, my evidence will cover everything before September 27th, where A Man In Black's evidence begins. This will cover deceptive edit summaries, labelling good faith edits as vandalism, disruption, vandalism, blanking, reverting despite consensus, etc. The evidence provided are not necessarily against guidelines or policy, but some evidence is included to show the character of the accused.

[edit] August 28

[edit] August 30

[edit] September 1

[edit] September 2

  • September 2, 2005
    • Wiped a message that was not bullying in the least, but was rather polite.

[edit] September 3

[edit] September 4

[edit] September 6

[edit] September 10

[edit] September 11

[edit] September 14

[edit] September 15

[edit] September 18

[edit] September 19

[edit] September 21

[edit] September 23

[edit] September 25

[edit] September 26

[edit] Evidence presented by A Man In Black

Note that this (as of yet) only includes egregious behavior above and beyond edit warring. I'm not sure I have the stamina to list all of Copperchair's numerous reverts to Star Wars, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, Revenge of the Sith, Palpatine, Boba Fett, and Darth Vader.

Also, this is a very spotty coverage of the events before Oct. 2, when I became involved. There's some major incivility from before Oct. 2,, including some talk page vandalism, pertaining to some sort of dispute between Copperchair and Chris Lawson over whether Copperchair should be blanking his own talk page or not. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 27 September

[edit] 28 September

  • 21:19, September 28, 2005
    • Another threat to vandalize Chris Lawson's talk page (not in the actual edit, but in the edit summary)

[edit] 29 September

[edit] 30 September

  • 01:23, October 1, 2005
    • Blanks (admittedly somewhat confrontational) attempts to correspond, as well as valid, non-confrontational attempts to ask him not to edit war and warnings and block notices for vandalizing talk pages. Note the blatantly false edit summary.

[edit] 1 October

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Copperchair is opened.

[edit] 2 October

  • 03:19, October 2, 2005
    • Note that this isn't a Copperchair edit; this is my first involvement in the matter. I protect Empire Strikes Back because of the ongoing edit war, and alert Copperchair (and others) of this fact.

[edit] 3 October

[edit] 9 October

  • 21:50, October 9, 2005
    • Reverts Empire Strikes Back, despite having agreed to stop reverting as part of the related RFM. The related RFM (which was not Copperchair vs. Everyone Else, mind; one of the major disputes was over which navbox template should be used, and Copperchair wasn't a party to this dispute) fell apart over what other users saw as Copperchair's bad faith.

[edit] 12 October

[edit] 13 October

[edit] 15 October

[edit] 17 October

[edit] 24 October

[edit] 30 October

[edit] 4 November

I'm afraid it's going to be impossible for me to list all of Copperchair's reverts; he's edit warring on at least a dozen pages, and has been since at least the beginning of October. I'm going to try to list a couple representative days.

Note that, with all of these reverts in a single day, Copperchair didn't make one single talk page edit (save for a user talk comment as part of an ongoing conversation about the War on Terror and a user talk comment complaining about being blocked for edit warring).

Note that, at this point, I blocked Wookieepedian and Copperchair for edit warring.

[edit] 8 November

After coming back from his 48-hour block, Copperchair goes back to revert warring almost immediately.

At this point, I blocked him for a week for going straight back into revert warring after being blocked for revert warring.

[edit] Evidence presented in response by Copperchair

What I have been doing in my edits is use an objective parameter (the movies' end credits, but limited to those that Coffee suggested in [2]), while others have used a subjective one (they include the ones they think are important). It is obvious that the filmmakers are the ones who decide who’s important and who’s not in the end credits, and I feel that if Wikipedia is to be accurate, as it should be being it an encyclopedia, we should follow the filmmakers’ decision. No matter how much discussion there is on the subject, the answer is right there in the end credits. I consider consensus on this matter to be irrelevant. As for the format of the articles, I have eliminated abbreviations and sections which I consider not to be proper for an encyclopedia, pointing out why in the edit summaries and/or in the talk pages (see [3] and [4] , for example). Note that in all articles I have kept all the good edits made by others since my last edit, while my edits have most of the times been reverted indiscriminately and called “vandalism”. All my edits have been god faith edits, as my only goal has been to improve Wikipedia. Finally, regarding what A Man In Black calls “talk page vandalism”, I only blanked bulling and false accusations of vandalism for my good faith edits

[edit] 27 September

    • True, but I did after he reverted my talk page countless times when I blanked bulling accusations of vandalism for my good faith edits, which are backed by the movies’ end credits.

[edit] 28 September

    • True, but I did after he reverted my talk page countless times when I blanked bulling accusations of vandalism for my good faith edits, which are backed by the movies’ end credits.

[edit] 29 September

    • True, but I did after he reverted my talk page countless times when I blanked bulling accusations of vandalism for my good faith edits, which are backed by the movies’ end credits.

[edit] 30 September

    • I did not begin the edit war. I have been keeping the article as it originally was. My edits are backed by the movies end credits. It is not false edit summary, since I consider intrusive edits of my talk page vandalism.

[edit] 3 October

  • It is not a deceptive edit summary, since I DID correct the spelling of the article as it originally was before the beginning of the edit war over the credits.

[edit] 9 October

  • The articles should have stayed as they originally were while the RFM was resolved. How is it bad faith to preserve the original format of the article while a decision was made? I am still willing to participate in mediation, if the articles are kept as they originally were as a cautionary measure (protected, if possible).


[edit] 12 October

  • Again, it is not a deceptive edit summary, since I DID change to italic the text of the article as it originally was before the beginning of the edit war.

[edit] 17 October

  • Again, it is not a deceptive edit summary, since I made the changes I mentioned, to the text of the article as it originally was before the beginning of the edit war.

[edit] 24 October

  • Again, it is not a deceptive edit summary, since I made the changes I mentioned, to the text of the article as it originally was before the beginning of the edit war.

[edit] 30 October

  • It is vandalism to revert grammar edits made to the text of the article as it originally was before the beginning of the edit war.

[edit] Evidence presented by Chris Lawson

[edit] 21 November

  • Copperchair insists he will not stop his current behaviour until the ArbCom hands down a decision. I shall be expanding this section later, but this needed to be brought to the attention of the ArbCom immediately.

[edit] 21 January

It's entirely possible that another anonymous Costa Rican has begun mass-editing Star Wars-related articles, using the IP address of 196.40.38.151 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). I think in light of the editing style and content, however, that our friend is back, in violation of his temporary injunction. The ArbCom should be able to determine if this IP is from a subnet from which Copperchair's previous edits have originated.

[edit] Evidence presented by Phil Welch

[edit] November 4, November 7, November 16

  • Copperchair is [5] blocked three consecutive times for over 24 hours due to persistent edit warring for 48 hours, 1 week, and 1 week respectively. After the first two bans he comes back and immediately begins edit warring again, as detailed in below sections:

[edit] November 16

A limited listing of edit warring edits follows. There may have been several more edit warring edits: Copperchair habitually makes a vast reversion and, in several small edits, changes everything back except the small issues he's concerned with, making it more difficult to revert his edits. He also mixes legitimate edits with edit warring edits. I may have made some legitimate errors in listing below; Copperchair's editing style seems to make it difficult to isolate his revert warring in particular.

Also, on Talk:Darth Vader, I summarize Copperchair's actions as of late and my response: [38]

[edit] November 3

[edit] November 24

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Copperchair_Evidence_2ef2.html"