Case Opened on 19:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 04:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties[edit]

Complaining witnesses

Nominal defendant

Statements by complaining witnesses[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I'll keep mine very brief. Basically, I agree with everything A Man in Black said. I'd just like to point out that Copperchair's user page reflects the POV that A Man in Black speculates (basically, that Copperchair believes the 1997 versions are The One True Version), and that the deceptive edit summaries -- which are often outright lies -- are driving me absolutely batty. He refuses to engage, has been entirely unreasonable for far too long, and has yet to demonstrate anything resembling "good faith" after being gently (and not-so-gently) chided to change his behaviour.--chris.lawson 04:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't that much else to say that hasn't already been said - deceptive edit summaries, refusal to cooperate on anything, demanding that Lucas' POV be used in the article over what was decided on in consensus, he even called me a loser (which he argues is in response to me calling him a sore loser, which is not the same thing). :< - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to stay out of this, but, now he has went too far. He is now calling all my reverts to his edits vindictive, when they are only per consensus. As seen: here here here here and all the main star wars film articles. The Wookieepedian 02:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add another comment: almost daily, Copperchair reverts Boba Fett, Palpatine, Darth Vader, Star Wars, and all of the Star Wars film articles to fit his preference for the 97' versions of the Star Wars films. And, especially recently, he refuses to give an edit summary. If and when he does, he will either accuse me of vandalism for reverting his edits, or will lie and say he is merely fixing a spelling mistake or something. I know this point has already been conveyed here very well, but this guy is really starting to drive me nuts. No matter how much I have attempted to reason with him, he still would revert. The Wookieepedian 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair is possibly the most uncivil, impossible-to-work-with editor I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. He has claimed, falsely, at various points in time that (a) consensus does not matter, (b) the views of others do not matter, and, oddly enough, (c) that he was either following consensus or that there was no consensus in those cases where he is editing blatantly contrary to consensus. However, it's not his bizarre inconsistencies and idiosyncratic views that trouble me. It's the fact that he acts upon these idiosyncratic views with no concern for other editors, alternatively using blunt personal attacks, blatant dishonesty, subtle deception, and outright revert-warring to put those views into practice. Although Copperchair has claimed that he never knew what the consensus was regarding, say, the inclusion of Wedge Antilles in the credits for various Star Wars films, one of his own talk page links [1] shows that myself, A Link to the Past, and Clawson all agree Wedge should be included, which at least provides a rough consensus. The fact that Copperchair's attempts to add Wedge have been reverted, at various times, by just about all parties listed as "Party 2" in this RfAr and then some also demonstrates a consensus. As for Copperchair's assertions that "we should follow the filmmakers’ decision" and that, in that respect, "consensus is irrelevant", Copperchair is demonstrating a severe disagreement with the policy of Consensus. Copperchair is of course free to disagree with some Wikipedia policies, so long as he does not violate those policies to the detriment of the community and the Wikipedia. — Phil Welch 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved party[edit]

I'm the initiating party, but I'm not actually an involved party as far as I can tell; the extent of my involvement is blocking Copperchair for 3RR and occasionally reverting his edits when they qualified as unexplained blanking.

The issue of style in the various Star Wars articles (including Star Wars, A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith) has been contentious for quite a while, but User:Copperchair has been making things even worse, particularly lately, by constantly reverting to his preferred version. I'm not entirely sure, but it seems like he's pushing the POV that the 1997 versions of the Star Wars movies are the "definitive" ones, and often removes or changes cast credits or other information pertaining to other versions of the movies. Additionally, he pushes a unilateral POV that Star Wars should not contain information about non-canon fanworks, by blanking the section without explaination on the talk page.

Were it only his revert warring, I would not bring this to the Arbcom, as, up until recently, these articles have been the subject of revert wars by multiple users, over multiple disputes. After administrator intervention and some informal moderation, however, many of these revert wars have cooled down, as the other involved users have stopped reverting and started talking on talk pages. Copperchair, however, seems to have escalated; his recent edit summaries include comments like "The administrators will decide that" and "Awaiting decision on Rfc and mediation". He's also made an occasional practice of making deceptive edit summaries.

I don't want to see sanctions against Copperchair, but I don't see anything that I or any other editor or administrator can do to get his attention to stop this reverting. I've blocked him on three separate occasions for 3RR violation, and I know other admins have blocked him, as well.

In the interest of completeness, I'd like to point out that there have been occasional personal attacks on both sides (one example). I don't think it's the real issue here, but it has been going on. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with the above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge the Arbcom to intervene, if only to put a stop to the slow-mo edit wars going on in Star Wars and other articles. An entire section of the article in Star Wars is blanked and replaced on a daily basis. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While doing RC patrol I notice many edits by Copperchair. It became apparent to me and User:Splash that he was being disruptive. I posted this to his talk page to explain the block.
I blocked you for 3 hours for edit warring, but more specifically for this edit. Looking at your contributions I see you corrected it just prior to the block; but it still indicates to me you were more concerned with reverting The Wookieepedian than making constructive edits. Please focus on another subject while the Rfa is ongoing.
It seems clear to me Copperchair is not editing in good faith. - RoyBoy 800 16:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nominal defendant[edit]

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I have not violated consensus, as I never received an answer as to what it was ([2]). Regarding the "gentle" requests on my talk page, those which I blanked were bulling and accused my of vandalism for my good faith edits, which are backed by the movies’ end credits. I have discussed the matter on [3]. In my edits, I have been using an objective parameter (the movies' end credits, but limited to those that Coffee suggested in [4]), 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. Consensus on this matter is irrelevant. So the issue comes down to this: do you prefer the articles to be accurate or to be determined by consensus?

As for my so-called “deceptive edit summaries”, they aren’t, because I say what I changed since my previous edit, which I consider to be the correct version, and which hasn’t been proved wrong since no decision was made on the Rfc filed against me, and no mediation was made. Also, note that in all articles I have kept all the good edits made by others since my last edit.

As for A Link to the Past’s accusation of me calling him a “loser”, I accept I did, but not before he called me that ([5]). All I have been doing is trying to make Wikipedia accurate. Copperchair 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Philwelch's hypocrital statements about my "blunt personal attacks", I would like to add that it is HE who has called me a "dick" and an "asshole" [6]. Regarding the "consensus", there is no mention to it in my talk page, as he falsely claims (follow the link he provided to see that he is lying). As for consensus, is it correct for an encyclopaedia to ignore FACTS just because there is consensus about it? Lastly, I would like to add that he has "hijacked" the Darth Vader article, using it as if it was his, edit warring and not following any consensus, but his will. See the history page of that article to see the countless reverts he has arbitrarily made to other's contributions, as well as its Talk page to see his constant questioning of other’s edits.

Finally, what is wrong about the comments about awaiting a decision on the matter in my edit summaries, which A Man In Black mentions? Isn't it true that there is a decision pending? Copperchair 08:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Statement of party that might be involved[edit]

I'm not sure how involved I am - I was involved in a revert war for a couple days on the Star Wars III page (although I only had one or two reverts myself). The thing that never ceases to amaze me is the determination copperchair has to keep it to "his version" - as literally every day I see a revert on the star wars article then reverted by an admin or someone else. There is an unfortunate trait of an unwillingness to comprise here. I basically echo the statements of the man in black and party 2 otherwise. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of lightly involved party 1[edit]

In my duties as an administrator and between watching WP:AN/3RR then subsequently watching Star Wars as well as many other related pages due to ongoing edit wars I would just like to note that many times I have had to deal with 3RR violations, and despite the fact that the editors involved (mainly in my encounters Philwelch and Wookiepedian (both now and as Adamwankenobi)) repeatedly in the heat of the moment violated 3RR, 4RR, 5RR, etc... despite pledging to attempt to work on this and even though they are doing a much better job avoiding edit wars and dealing with issues on talk pages I think that this should also be looked into by the arbcom. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of lightly involved party 2[edit]

Copperchair is clearly going agaist established wikipedia policy. He continues to blank his page time upon time again, to the point where several wikipedians must survey his actions regarding his edits 24/7. When I asked him on his talkpage to desist blanking, and instead resolve the matter with archiving, he simply reverted 20 minutes later. Note that several admins also constructed the query of asking Copperchair to respect the decision, and he continued to vandalise. Note that on a online community, one can only go by a person;s actions and comments, and while I respect Copperchair's comment, he quickly validated to me that he is not doing what he thinks is "right", and proceeds to go agaist policy and exhibits clear insolence and disregard for rules in his actions . I fear at the thought what will transpire when his block is lifted. He must stop this behavior lest he do anymore damage to wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/0/0)

Temporary injunction

Temporary ban on Copperchair editing

1) As Copperchair has continued to edit war on a number of articles pending resolution of this matter, he is banned from editing any pages other than these Arbitration pages and his own user and talk page. He may be briefly blocked should he edit any other page.

Passed 7 to 0 at 16:26, December 5, 2005

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles[edit]

Consensus

1) Wikipedia:Consensus requires a good faith effort by users to communicate with each other in order to negotiate solutions which meet the needs of the users of Wikipedia.

Passed 8-0 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Obsession

2) Users who display rigid or obsessional editing behavior may be fully or partially banned from editing.

Passed 8-0 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Star Wars

1) Copperchair has fixed, non-negotiable views regarding editing of articles which relate to Star Wars, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence#Evidence presented in response by Copperchair where he openly expresses those views, explicitly rejecting consensus decision making.

Passed 8-0 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

War on Terrorism

2) Copperchair has a fixed idea that information regarding the Iraq War should not be included in War on Terrorism, see [7] and Talk:War on Terrorism#Iraq war-only information doesn't belong here.

Passed 7-0 with one abstention 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

3) Copperchair has engaged in edit warring on War on Terrorism and multiple Star Wars-related articles in an attempt to enforce these views. [8] [9] [10] [11]

Passed 6-0 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Copperchair banned from Star Wars

1) Copperchair is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to Star Wars.

Passed 8-0 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair banned from War on Terrorism

2) Copperchair is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to War on Terrorism.

Passed 6-1 with one abstention 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Copperchair placed on Probation

3) Copperchair is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. Any administrator may ban him indefinitely from any article which he disrupts by aggressive editing. Any three administrators may impose a partial or general ban up to and including an indefinite ban for good cause documented at a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair#Documentation of bans.

Passed 8-0 04:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Documentation of bans[edit]

Place here the basis of any action taken under the provision of any remedy of Wikipedia:Probation imposed in this matter. Include a link to a statement of all administrators supporting the action taken.


Category