Case Opened on 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 23:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Rwiggum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dismas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Verdatum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment

• [1]
• [2]

This issue began when G.-M. Cupertino reverted one of my edits to the article. The article is one of an actress, and my edit consisted of putting her filmography into a table format, removing what I felt to be ancillary information (including the number of episodes she appeared on for each television series and several DVD extras) and un-linking several non-existent articles. I later reinstated my edits. When they were again reverted, I took it to his talk page to try and discuss why he felt my edits were harmful to the article. He believed that my revisions removed important information, while I believed that such information was not necessary and hurt the visual layout of the page. This is not an isolated incident, either. On several occasions, the user has replaced tabled filmographies with direct copy-pastes from IMDB. 1 2 3 4

Since my very first interaction with him, G.-M. Cupertino has been largely hostile and unwilling to reach a common consensus. I have tried to work with him to get this issue resolved, but he has been extremely resistant to my attempts. He has also deleted all of my postings on his talk page, so here are the revision histories that make up the most complete versions:

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

Likewise, in addition to being openly hostile toward me, he has continually removed his postings from my talk page as well. Here is the most recent revision of that, in case he removes it again:

[8]

After my continual insistence that he stop deleting content from my talk page, he chose instead to vandalize it twice under an IP:

[9]

[10]

Throughout this entire process I have been civil, cordial and willing to work to a conclusion. However, G.-M. Cupertino has been hostile and unwilling to make an effort, and has continued making unconstructive edits with no regard for other editors and a general indignation to those who tried to help him. (I am not the first one to bring this issue to his attention). I simply ask the arbitration committe to help me bring this incident to a peaceful conclusion. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note Another user has brought to my attention some more instances of G.-M. Cupertino's difficulties with others. (I tried to keep it to more substantial edits to the user's talk page, as G.-M. Cupertino has made several edits and additions to his posts. The full messages can be found here.)

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note #2 Yet another user has come forward to express their frustration with G.-M. Cuperiono.

[16]

And the user also brings up a very valid point: It isn't that I feel that Cuperino's contributions are entirely worthless, on the contrary. A lot of these pages need filmographies. The major problem is his complete unwillingness to work with other editors to improve the articles. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note #3 and Question It appears that I misunderstood the initial comment by Dismas on my userpage. He wasn't just directing me to his talk page and Cuperino's previous postings, but he was posting me here, to a user page he created to chronicle his dealings with Cuperino.

This leads me to my question: Now that the request for arbitration has been started, would it be too late to include him in this discussion? It seems as though he has quite a bit of insight into this situation as well. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note #4 Dismas and Verdatum have been added as Involved Parties. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note #5 It seems as though he's getting worse. He's taken to making personal attacks, [17] as well as removing some of the disputed content from pages wholesale. [18] [19] Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note #6 Here are a few more: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] At this point, he has moved past unconstructive edits and into the territory of pure vandalism. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Note #7 I apologize for making so many additions in such a short time, but he has now moved onto nominating all of the articles for speedy deletion, [26] in addition to continue removing filmographies. At this point it is clear that his edits are intended to be viscious and in bad faith, and if arbitration isn't the correct way to go about this, then I need to know what to do with him. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE The user has been temporarily blocked for his edits: [27] Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the article for which this arbitration was started. I have however dealt with Cupertino on several occaisions. In almost every case he has been difficult to deal with.

When I put links to WP guidelines and policies into my edit summaries, he does not take the time to read those guidelines and policies. He has claimed that he doesn't have time to be reading pages of rules even when specific parts of policies are pointed out to him. I could understand if he didn't read every word of a particular guideline but he won't even take the time to skim them for relevant info. Although, somehow he has been able to hold onto the line at the top of every guideline that says that guidelines are not to be enforced on every page and are left to editor's discretion. He uses this excuse liberally to explain his edits. Due to having to re-explain guidelines to him, he now smugly inserts the word "mandatory" before every instance of using the term "guideline".

He has been uncivil on many occasions, whether on my talk page or in edit summaries.

Only by having an admin intervene or get a third opinion, through WP:3O, have I been able to speed up the process of reaching an agreement with him. For a long time now, he's had an "admin for emergencies" listed on his talk page. As far as I have gathered, this admin at one time helped Cupertino out and has since been listed there. They seem to be one of the few people that Cupertino listens to.

Only by posting things to his talk page does he ever engage in any sort of communication and even then it's spotty. He doesn't seem to have learned that this is a collaborative project. Instead of reading an edit summary and asking what something stands for, why someone has reverted his edit, or why someone has tweaked an edit that he's made, he simply reads it, dismisses it, and puts the article back to his version. When going through the effort of getting him to realize that dates were not to be linked 100% of the time, one of his rants was about how some 'powers that be' made some changes to the rules and didn't make him aware. When the recent notice was put at the top of everyone's watchlist about the discussion over dates, I made sure to point out to Cupertino that he could have his say on the matter. When I checked the discussions just now, he had still not weighed in with his thoughts even though this was such a hot button item with him previously.

Due to the fact that I've had to deal with him in so many cases and have had to go to such great lengths, I felt that at some point things may come to arbitration with him. Therefore, I have been building a record, of sorts, of his actions. You can find this at a sub-page of my user page, here.

With all that being said, I do have to say that he is able to do a large number of tedious edits seemingly without any scripts. When they are good edits, it is a very good thing to see. I just wish that he was more communicative and more receptive to changes because then he wouldn't waste so much time undoing various things. Dismas|^(talk) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved with concerns on this article itself, but instead regarding the actions of User:G.-M. Cupertino. I first had a disagreement with him in regards to the Kyra Sedgwick article. It resulted in in the following discussion [28], where he made Legal Threats, Personal Attacks failed to Assume Good Faith, failed to remain Civil, and acted as though he owned the article. The first argument, regarding WP:BLP, was resolved eventually, and the second argument, regarding Filmography, was eventually resolved through a compromise after making a request for a third opinion.

I found interacting with this user most off-putting. His correspondence were consistently in an aggressive tone (as seen in the above link). He overlooked requests for discussion, instead choosing to voice brief agressive arguments in the Edit Summary [29] [30]. I added messenges to his talkpage [31] [32], both of which were immediately removed by him, which as I interpret WP:TALK is alright, but it makes threaded discussion difficult. I scanned the user's contributions and found a general history of the same agressive argument style. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, assuming it was just a matter of a language barrier, and unfamiliarity with some guidelines and policies, still I continued to watch his talkpage, in case I could try to aid with any future altercations he might have with other editors.

Shortly there after, I was contacted by User:Dismas regarding concerns about this editor [33]. I believe that resulted in Dsmas opening a RFA/UC which was quickly closed for not yet being a last resort.

After noticing a long string of back a forth edits on User talk:G.-M. Cupertino‎, between Cupertino and User:Rwiggum on my watchlist, I glanced through them, and decided to drop Rwiggum a note about Cupertino's editing style [34].

Any other issues on the matter are merely practices I've witnessed in sporadically monitoring his contributions, but I'm not yet comfortable enough with this process to know what level of detail I should cover, and would mostly be redundant to the statements of the other editors involved. -Verdatum (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (12/4/2/1)

• Comment. At first glance this does not look as if the situation is ripe for an Arbitration Committee case. There may be user conduct issues, but it is not clear to me that others attempts to resolve the problems have been tried. Since Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, some preliminary steps need to be tried if they have not been done yet. See Dispute resolution for methods of to give users feedback. For example. Request for commentFloNight♥♥♥ 21:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any user with knowledge of the situation is free to add a comment to this request. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. At this time, I see no evidence that Arbitration is needed to resolve this situation. Open an User conduct RFC. Even if the user conduct issue continue, I want to give the Community a chance to resolve the situation first. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second Newyorkbrad's recent comment. Unless an update of the current situation persuades the majority of the Committee that this can be handled best by the Community, I will change my vote to accept. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now Accept, due to the ongoing events. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting more statements. There are very real conduct and civility concerns here, but per FloNight, it might be possible to address them short of arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G.-M. Cupertino has stated that he has stopped editing in an area where his edits have proved contentious. I would appreciate an update on whether alleged problems persist with his editing in other areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still would appreciate an update (from the filing party or others) on any recent developments. Having said that, if the voting remains as is I will be changing to "accept"; our refusing to hear a case that a majority of the committee (9 of 17) has now voted to accept would in my view be an unacceptable application of the already problematic "net four" rule. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to accept per above and per Risker below. The case can be opened forthwith given acceptance by a majority of the entire committee. Agree with others with renaming the case, which no longer has much to do with Maria Thayer. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with what has been said above, and would reject the request at this time. G.-M. Cupertino's refusal to participate in mediation is worrying. Nevertheless, there are other methods of dispute resolution available. I would recommend making a request for comments; see the instructions here. If that fails to reach a suitable outcome then arbitration may be appropriate. --bainer (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept. The nature of the comments here suggest to me that a user RFC would not accomplish anything substantive; there are some concrete problems we can address here. Kirill ^(prof) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept a case dealing with G.-M. Cupertino's wider editing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. I'm outta here too soon. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse, as with Josh, though I would urge the Committee to accept it. James F. (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...The failure of GMC to participate neither in RFC or here does not bode well for the success of a full arbcom case. Therefore, I ask a sitting arb to make a motion to deal with GCM. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept given events of past several days and that GMC would likely not participate in an RFC. Rename case to GMC and look at broad editing and behavior issues. 12:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Not-quite-Arb Motion? I echo Rlevse's comment and welcome a motion from a sitting arbitrator. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a motion would be inappropriate in this case because there has been no previous case and it does not seem to be an emergency. Opening a full case is often useful in disclosing the background and sometimes shows up factors which are not apparent from the statements. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. From the looks of it, all a user conduct rfc would do is have the same few people saying GM's editing is bad, then it'd be archived with nothing coming out of it. Arbitration seems the best course of action to look at the conduct issues presented. Wizardman 16:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, a rename upon acceptance to GMC as opposed to Maria Thayer would be best. Wizardman 19:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with the propriety of a rename if the case opens. — Coren ^(talk) 19:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept as an RFC will seemingly achieve little. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; it would appear that an RFC will simply delay the inevitable landing of this case back on the Committee's role, and the matter is only likely to have grown more acrimonious by then. — Coren ^(talk) 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject. I see no reason that this cannot be handled at the community level. I believe that there are admin who would be willing to block based on a sensible ANI report and few to none willing to unblock. There is no indication that blocking or otherwise sanctioning this user would be divisive to the community. As for the "admin failure", I see no evidence that this has been raised for administrator intervention. Rather than ask where the admins were when they were needed, we should ask: Where are the 3RR reports? Where are the ANI complaints? Where are the efforts to inform the project administrators that intervention was needed? We cannot expect administrators to be all-knowing and interject in situations that have not been raised in the venues they watch for such reports. Regarding the assertion that this would require a long process involving multiple discussions to resolve, I have seen absolutely no evidence that this is the case. Regardless, at least attempting a community discussion to impose sanctions should be a necessary prequisite to asserting that such a discussion would not work. This is exactly the kind of request that arbs should reject. For this sort of situation, we're the last resort to be used when all other recourses fail, not the go-to crowd for obvious sanctions. Vassyana (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• conditional accept. I suspect that Vassyana is right—I think the community could handle this. If they do so in the next week, I would consider the matter moot, and so my vote should not be taken as a sign that ArbCom has taken over the case. That said, if nothing happens in the next week, we should take it. Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Vassyana. Risker (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will say that I am unimpressed by this edit summary, directed at another editor involved in this request. Has there been any attempt at an RFC yet? Risker (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inappropriate contact with editors continues today. I also note that the majority of the committee has voted to accept, and agree with Newyorkbrad that when such situations occur, the case should be accepted despite the net-4 standard. Therefore, with these two facts in mind, I change my vote to Accept. Recommend name change to that of the primary subject. Risker (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Kirill, Sam, Roger and Coren. I also agree with the renaming per Wizardman. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept I think we may be able to fine-tune a solution. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject per Vassyana. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject - there are severe concerns here, but this could easily be dealt with outside arbitration as pointed out by others. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

4) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks, bans, and user accountability—and especially to make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize—is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1) The conflict in this case revolves around the ability or inability of G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to edit constructively and work civilly with other users.

Passed 12 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino

2) G.-M. Cupertino has engaged in repeated incivility and personal attacks ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39]), edit warring ([40], [41], [42], [43]) and sockpuppetry ([44]).

Passed 12 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

G.-M. Cupertino banned

1) G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Passed 10 to 0 (with one abstention) at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino restricted to one user account

2) Should G.-M. Cupertino return to editing following his ban, he is limited indefinitely to using one account to edit. He is to inform the Committee of the account he has selected, and must obtain the Committee's approval if he wishes to begin using a different account.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block

1) After G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) selects a single account for editing, his other accounts, including any newly discovered accounts, are to be blocked (or remain blocked) indefinitely. Furthermore, for any future breaches of the one account restriction remedy, G.-M. Cupertino may be blocked (or a block extended) for an appropriate period of time by any administrator. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 11 to 0 at 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 07:44, 17 January 2009 Mailer diablo changed block settings for G.-M. Cupertino (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 year (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) ‎ (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino, Remedy One (1 year ban))

2019, 10th anniversary

As of January 2019 User:G.-M._Cupertino (GMC) has repeatedly evaded blocks using IP addresses see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino somtimes GMC is able to use these IP address for months before an edits using an IP address is recognised as a sockpuppeht of GMC. Because GMC is usually still adding content that is either trivia, other details without citations to reliable sources, or small changes such as fixing punctuation, many of these edits are reverted. However GMC is prolific, for example

• 83.240.186.98 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

made 270 edits to scores of pages on 8 January 2019 just before the IP was blocked. This means that inevitably a significat number of edits made by GMC are not reverted. It seems that GMC considers the revets made collateral dammage as days, months or years later GMC will return to the same pages and rinsert the same edits or make similar changes.

Asuming that IP edits by this user are banned (because GMC has not "inform[ed] the Committee of the account he has selected") I systematically went through the edits made by GMC using IP 83.240.186.98 and reverted those not already reverted (see WP:BMB), in the hope that reverting 100s of edits will act as a deterrent to future sockpuppet edits by GMC. It has upset GMC judging by this diff. Time will tell if it works as a deterant.

GMC is indefinitely blocked on 18 May 2010 for "Personal attacks or harassment: edit warring again: no sign of having learned anything from previous blocks" and would have been blocked for sockpuppetery continuing to use sockpuppet accounts to avoid the 18 May on 30 May 2010 (diff).

The current list of sockpuppets is:

The current list of suspected sockpuppets includes:

-- PBS (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]