In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC).

• Copperchair (talk · contribs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other then to endorse.

Copperchair consistently refuses to abide by community consensus on the various Star Wars films articles. He removes Wedge Antilles (Dennis Lawson) from the credits, in violation of consensus and to prove a point that he believes the entire cast should be listed.

He also refuses to comply with numerous polite requests from several editors on his user Talk page that he cease this behaviour. His response has been to blank the "offending" sections of his Talk page, rather than to change his behaviour or engage in rational discussion.

I have been politely reminding the user that blanking user Talk pages, even his own, is not considered an acceptable practise, especially when that blanking is intended to remove (or hide) warnings. He considers these reminders to be vandalism, and continues blanking and otherwise vandalising my Talk page as "revenge" for what he perceives as "vandalism" on my part. (The user was blocked for three hours earlier tonight for this behaviour.)

See "Statement of the dispute" above.

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14]
15. [15]
16. [16] (note deceptive edit summary)
17. [17]
18. [18]
19. [19]
20. Lots more at edit history for Star Wars Episode IV
21. [20] After signing the RfM on this, Copperchair continues to revert back to "his" versions of the various articles, despite agreeing to cease this behaviour. The others (including me) who have signed the RfM are abiding by the suggested injunction by Redwolf24.
22. [21] Copperchair's latest reversion includes reintroducing fixed spelling errors—either through negligently failing to monitor intervening edits or deliberate vandalism.
23. [22] -- this edit summary is not even remotely true. To quote a paper I once read, "We find these assertions to be incompatible with reality."
24. [23] After being asked by A Link to the Past to stop, Copperchair tells Link on Link's talk page that, in essence, he will continue his behaviour until sanctions are imposed against him by Wikipedia administrators.

1. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point
2. No personal attacks
3. Be civil
4. Consensus

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]
5. [28]
6. [29]
7. [30] (note edit summary)
8. [31] (note edit summary, in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA)

(sign with ~~~~)

1. --chris.lawson 01:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Phil Welch 04:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Maru (talk) 04:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. --A Link to the Past (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Mipadi 11:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. PurplePlatypus 03:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
7. -MegamanZero|Talk 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(sign with ~~~~)

I do not believe the entire cast should be listed, as evidenced in all my reverts (the last of which were [32] and [33]). I have only kept the characters suggested by Coffee in [34]. Furthermore, I have not violated consensus, as I never received an answer as to what it was ([35]). Regarding the “polite 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. Also, I have discussed the matter on [36]. In my edits, I have been using an objective parameter (the movies' end credits, but limited to those that Coffee suggested), 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? Copperchair 01:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. The Wookieepedian 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. MegamanZero|Talk 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

This is obviously a highly contentious dispute. Copperchair has made some uncivil statements, and possibly violated WP:POINT. But Copperchair's talk page is his own area, and he has the right to do whatever he wants with it. Nevertheless, Copperchair going and blanking Clawson's entire talk page is not only against WP policy, but is also an unnecessarily vengeful move.

I recommend mediation for both parties, probably a formal mediation. There's obviously some problems going on that need to be addressed.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. Ral315 W_S 04:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3. Vandalising/blanking another persons userpage is unacceptable. I would have given him a 24 hr block. --Cool Cat ^Talk 12:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. Derex 20:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Phil Welch 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
6. WP:RFM--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 08:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have had similar issues with Copperchair, that I failed to resolve.

I agree that, in general, a user has a right to blank their own talk page, and that no other user should normally unblank it, which has happened.

In this case however, Copperchair has blanked questions like "why did you revert X?" and "why did you revert Y?" Some questions deserve answers.

I see no evidence that Copperchair even understands that what he is doing is wrong, and specifically, he appears incapable of accepting that a minority view must at least attempt to accomodate the majority view.

I do what I think is right. Copperchair 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

He has not, in my experience, been prepared either to explain his own actions, nor to attempt to understand the POV of any other party.

I do not think this is unwillingness on his part, so much as utter inability. How can I put this as politely as possible; I know one person who can be more indifferent to the views of other people than Copperchair, and he is a diagnosed autistic.

I don't know what to do. I do not expect that Copperchair will reform, whatever punishment is imposed. If infinite blocked, he might go away, or he might start another account.

I wish you the wisdom of Solomon.

Regards, Ben Aveling 07:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.