Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Copperchair
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I endorsed the outside view because Copperchair's talk page is his own, and if deleting sections of his talk page is his form of archival I have no complaint with it. There are far more problematic behaviors on his part for us to worry about—I can afford to assume good faith about his talk page. — Phil Welch 00:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- As I mentioned on someone's Talk page -- Ral315's, maybe? -- blanking user Talk pages to remove vandalism warnings is hardly "archiving" and should not be excused as such. I've explained this to him several times, and he hasn't gotten the point. Then again, he hasn't gotten the point about consensus, either, so why should I expect him to listen to anything I say?--chris.lawson 01:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- In response to Philwelch's statement, I suupose you could consider his blanking of his own talk page as a form of unintentional archiving, since all previous edits are archived in the page's history. If someone wants to see his history, then they could view it there. The Wookieepedian 15:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Not really. He's removing discussion and questions posed to him by other Wikipedians without following up at all. He's basically refusing to answer any reasonable questions directed at him on his Talk page, especially if those questions have any semblance of criticism at all. And the majority of what I've posted on his Talk page has been either warnings or reprimands for his behaviour, or questions about why he's behaving how he is. This is all getting blanked, without response or change in behaviour. That has to stop.--chris.lawson 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- He's back at it. He now has reverted the cast list on A New Hope and has removed, like always, the remark about the Palpatine photo being from "the original version." The Wookieepedian 02:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. He's removing discussion and questions posed to him by other Wikipedians without following up at all. He's basically refusing to answer any reasonable questions directed at him on his Talk page, especially if those questions have any semblance of criticism at all. And the majority of what I've posted on his Talk page has been either warnings or reprimands for his behaviour, or questions about why he's behaving how he is. This is all getting blanked, without response or change in behaviour. That has to stop.--chris.lawson 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
-
-
With regard to Copperchair's response, I think we need to distinguish two points: firstly, whether Copperchair has a valid point to make about who to list in the cast sections, and secondly, whether Copperchair is going about making that point in a civil way that helps Wikipedia. The first point is a content dispute that I personally have little interest in. As for the second point, Copperchair has not only claimed there was a consensus as to Wedge's inclusion in the cast listing (since a large number of people were reverting his edits and he was the only one reverting back, I think the real consensus was evident), he has also inconsistently claimed that consensus doesn't matter. I'm not even comparing statements he made at different points in time—both these viewpoints are clearly present within his response to this very RfC. I'd like to note that despite what Copperchair thinks, consensus does matter. Copperchair is free to hold a dissenting belief but insofar as consensus is Wikipedia's guiding principle, he cannot be allowed to practice this belief on Wikipedia like he has been doing as of late. — Phil Welch 03:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I also have to note that I find it to be in very bad faith for Copperchair to be using misleading edit summaries again. (I've noted an example of this in the evidence section.) — Phil Welch 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I basically agree with the above distinction. Weighing in on the reasons why one cast list is more appropriate than another is fine. Using backhanded or deceptive editing practices to push one POV is poor form, and to ignore warnings about misbehavior is grounds for administrative action. Dystopos 05:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Some examples of Copperchair's conduct
I'm not sure where to put these, but Copperchair is mischaracterizing his actions.
While he says he is only deleting "bulllying accusations of vandalism", this is a good example of the sorts of messages he is deleting from his talk page. Note that among these notices are a warning and a block notice for vandalizing a user page.
He has also labeled controversial changes in structure to a cast list as "Sp.", such as seen here.
These facts, I feel, bring Copperchair's good faith into question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- And I've warned him about that, too. See his Talk page's history, about a month or two back, for my comments about his disingenuous edit summaries. He blanked those, too, by the way.--chris.lawson 04:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- He's done it again. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting after acceptance of RfM
Looks like Copperchair is continuing his habit of not keeping his agreements. This is the main reason I'm staying away from the mediation request—there is little point making agreements with Copperchair given his patterns of behavior. — Phil Welch 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] RFAr
Seeing as Copperchair has continued to revert, I've escalated this to a Request for Arbitration.. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
