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.
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.
August 28
August 30
September 1
September 2
- September 2, 2005
- Wiped a message that was not bullying in the least, but was rather polite.
September 3
- September 2, 2005
- Continued reverting, deceptive edit summary, claimed edit was a minor edit.
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Wars_Episode_VI:_Return_of_the_Jedi&diff=prev&oldid=22457547, September 3, 2005
- Continued reverting, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (shortening it to an extremely small size).
- September 3, 2005
- Continued reverting, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
- September 3, 2005
- Continued reverting, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.
- September 3, 2005
- Continued reverting, deceptive edit summary (there was no agreement for adding Chief Jawa, and no agreement to remove Wedge).
September 4
September 6
September 10
September 11
September 14
September 15
September 18
September 19
September 21
September 23
September 25
September 26
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)[reply]
27 September
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)
29 September
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.
1 October
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Copperchair is opened.
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.
3 October
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.
12 October
13 October
15 October
17 October
24 October
30 October
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).
- 08:34, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over inclusion/exclusion of info about the cast of the 2004 remakes of the movies in Cast of Star Wars
- 08:34, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over an image of Ian McDiarmid in the 2004 version of Empire Strikes Back
- 08:34, 4 November 2005
- Not clear what the edit war is about here, but he's clearly reverting to a preferred version; note that he's reinserted the link to ((Star Wars episodes)), which has been a redirect to ((Star Wars)) for quite a while now.
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring in Boba Fett over a mention of a voice actor in the 2004 remakes and over expanded universe quotes
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring in Revenge of the Sith over cast list and DVD details. This is clearly a revert to a preferred version; note the reinsertion of a typo ("Kashyyk" is misspelled).
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over whether Palpatine appeared in Empire Strikes Back or not.
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- 09:46, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over the arrangement of the cast and headers in Empire Strikes Back. Note that he reverts to a preferred version, reintroducing a typo (which he then corrects in the next edit).
- 09:47, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over inclusion/exclusion of info about the cast of the 2004 remakes of the movies in Cast of Star Wars
- 09:47, 4 November 2005
- Not clear what the edit war is about in The Phantom Menace, but he's clearly reverting to a preferred version; note that he's reinserted the link to ((Star Wars episodes)), which has been a redirect to ((Star Wars)) for quite a while now.
- 09:47, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over mentions of Ian McDiarmid in the 2004 version of Empire Strikes Back
- 13:35, 4 November 2005
- 13:31, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over the "Fan Works" header and an image from the 2004 version of Empire Strikes Back in Star Wars.
- 13:31, 4 November 2005
- 13:44, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over whether Palpatine appeared in Empire Strikes Back or not.
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over inclusion/exclusion of info about the cast of the 2004 remakes of the movies in Cast of Star Wars
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- Not clear what the edit war is about here, but he's clearly reverting to a preferred version; note that he's reinserted the link to ((Star Wars episodes)), which has been a redirect to ((Star Wars)) for quite a while now.
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring in Revenge of the Sith over cast list and DVD details. Note that the large cut of the "rumors" about the removal of a character is not part of this edit war.
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- 14:16, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring over mentions of Ian McDiarmid in the 2004 version of Empire Strikes Back
- 14:19, 4 November 2005
- 14:23, 4 November 2005
- Edit warring in Boba Fett over a mention of a voice actor in the 2004 remakes and over expanded universe quotes.
Note that, at this point, I blocked Wookieepedian and Copperchair for edit warring.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 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.
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:
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.
- Star Wars: [6], [7]
- Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace: [8], [9]
- Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones: [10], [11]
- Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith: [12], [13]
- Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope: [14], [15]
- Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back: [16], [17]
- Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi: [18], [19]
- Palpatine: [20], [21], [22]
- List of changes in Star Wars re-releases: [23], [24]
- Cast of Star Wars: [25], [26]
- Darth Vader: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]
- Template:Starwars: [32], [33]
- Ian McDiarmid: [34], [35]
- Prequel trilogy (Star Wars): [36]
- War on Terrorism: [37],
Also, on Talk:Darth Vader, I summarize Copperchair's actions as of late and my response: [38]
November 3
November 24
- Copperchair deletes from his talk page his agreement to abide by the ArbCom decision. In other edits that took place around the same time, Copperchair deleted other people's comments—however, in this edit, the only change is to remove his agreement to abide by the ArbCom decision. The comment was restored by User:A Link to the Past in the course of reverting Copperchair's other comment removals, and struck out by myself with a link to this diff.