Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino/Evidence
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
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, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Rwiggum
[edit]G.-M. Cupertino edits with little regard for the work of other editors
[edit]On several occasions, the user has replaced tabled filmographies for actors and actresses with direct copy-pastes from IMDB, including DVD extra features and specific episodes of television shows. 1 2 3 4 5
this is just a selected list, and only one from each page. He has repeatedly reverted to his edits when multiple editors have tried to make constructive edits.
G.-M. Cupertino is openly hostile and unwilling to work with other editors
[edit]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: 1 2 3 4 5
G.-M. Cupertino has a nasty habit of responding to even constructive criticism with hostility and misplaced anger. Here are just a few samples from other people's talk pages exemplifying this.
Cupertino on my talk page
[edit]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: [1] [2]
After my continual insistence that he stop deleting content from my talk page, he chose instead to vandalize it twice under an IP:
Cupertino on Dismas' talk page
[edit]Likewise, Dismas came forward after the request for arbitration had begun and showed me one of his userpages under which he has been building a case against Cupertino for some time, recording many of his editing actions with others: [10]
Cupertino on Kww's talk page
[edit]This is after several reverts of Cupertino's removal of content from Kww's talk page, having broken the 3RR rule (1, 2, 3, Warning)
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kww&diff=261456168&oldid=261455845
Conclusion
[edit]G.-M. Cupertino has shown time and time again that he is unwilling to edit in a collaborative and helpful manner. He is standoffish and hostile, and the evidence presented here is only a fraction of what is surely out there, and there is even more at the original request. He was recently banned once for sockpuppeting, conditionally unblocked to contribute to this case, then re-blocked for breaking those conditions:
G.-M. Cupertino has engaged in extensive and serious incivility
[edit]G.-M. Cupertino has operated abusive sockpuppet accounts for a protracted period of time
[edit]Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/G.-M. Cupertino [17] [18]
G.-M. Cupertino has operated the sockpuppet account Gonçalo-Manuel for the purpose of block evasion
[edit]Evidence presented by Dismas
[edit]WP:OVERLINK
[edit]Take this diff of the Danielle Savre article for instance where Cupertino wikilinked every hobby the person has including links for both "baking" and "cookies". The article is about an actress and has nothing to do with baking or cookies and both are common English words. The links add nothing to the article just as in the "Supply and Demand" example from WP:OVERLINK where linking of "potatoes" doesn't add anything to the S&D article.
I cited WP:OVERLINK in my edit summary and Cupertino replaced those links
Yet another example which is two days after the previous incident.
WP:NPA
[edit]Secondly, Cupertino has at least twice violated WP:NPA. The first as evidenced here at the bottom of the page. And the second time on my own talk page here. Another example from an edit summary.
And a third!
WP:MOS
[edit]Cupertino ignores other editors when guidelines are pointed out such as WP:MOS. This edit shows where it was pointed out that episode titles are to be in double quotes and film/television show titles are to be in italics. Another example where the pertinent guidelines are pointed out in the edit summary and this edit was later undone
WP:LOW
[edit]As part of an informal third opinion type situation, I posted my thoughts about WP:LOW on the talk page of the Rachelle Lefèvre article. Two other editors agreed with me that the "Year in X" type links should be removed from the article. Yet, Cupertino, who keeps the name of an "Admin for emergencies" handy, took the words of that admin and ran with it.
After pointing out that filmographies should be in reverse chronological order, Cupertino has continued to go against this guideline. A second editor has even pointed this out to them.
Summary
[edit]I believe that Cupertino's linking of non-notable films/television shows/etc. as well as linking of unrelated common English words are related. They make the article messy and difficult to read.
Cupertino consistently ignores other editors when guidelines and policies are pointed out.
Cupertino is argumentative and while they've made several good edits, fights anyone who makes changes to articles which Cupertino disagrees with.
Disrupting my talk page
[edit]The disruption on my talk page got mentioned above, but I will expand the timeline for easier examination:
- An old argument was deleted by 195.22.28.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), later confirmed as a sock of GMC.
- Restored by Question: Are you being served? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No idea why he was monitoring the situation so carefully.
- IP removes it again
- Restored by AtheWeatherman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), again kind of spookily quickly.
- removed again
- Quickly reverted by Versus22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Removed by GMC, who has now logged in, and pretends that the IP wasn't him. Other editors leave it alone.
- I wake up, and restore the comments. I rarely permit things to be removed from my talk page, even vandalism.
- GMC has the gall to revert my edits to my own talk page.
- I restore it
- I make it clear to GMC that I don't want him deleting things from my talk page
- As usual, GMC gets angry, and deletes it again.
- I restore my talk page
- 3RR warning for GMC, because I can see that this isn't going to stop until GMC is blocked, and I don't need a report rejected on a technicality.
- GMC tells me to go fuck myself
- Reverted by Either way (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- I restore the comment. No one can accuse me of inconsistency.
- GMC violates the term of his unblock to yell some more
- GMC then decides to threaten me
I'm pretty sure he was trying to make it less likely that people would notice the personal attacks contained in the comments, but has succeeded only in drawing a lot of extra attention to them.
—Kww(talk) 04:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
[edit]before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
[edit]Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
[edit]Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.