Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Additional comments 1.1 Comment by HistoryBuffEr 1.2 Comment by Mpolo 1.3 Comment by --Alterego 1.4 Comment by CheeseDreams (which is bound to be drowned out by responses to it) 1.5 User:Amgine's comment 1.6 Comment by Dr Zen 1.7 Comment by Filiocht 1.8 Comment by Noel 1.9 Comment by FT2 2 Further discussion 3 Format of the RfA page 4 Wheres the good faith 5 Slrubenstein Rebuts CheesDreams' Response 6 ChessDreams Rebuts Shrubblesten's Response to CheesDreams 7 Temporary injunction 7.1 Ta bu shi da yu 8 Modest proposal on RfCs 9 VFD discussion 10 CheeseDreams has allegedly vandalised my user page 11 Violation of temporary injunction 12 Clarification

[edit] Additional comments

Material copied from Requests for Arbitration:

Something needs to be done about this, because CheeseDreams continues to edit without any regard for discussions. The word koan has once more been added to Jesus, showing that CheeseDreams has no intention of respecting the community. Se has also restored and repopulated Category:Bible stories after an 80% vote to delete. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 01:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Eequor. Despite the fact that numerous editors have objected to the insertion of a sentence on koans at Talk:Jesus, CheeseDreams has twice inserted the sentence while entering completely misleading edit summaries. [1] [2] This is exactly the kind of behavior that breaks down trust among all editors and damages the ability of this project to achieve its goals. Jwrosenzweig 00:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Caveat to Jwrosenzweig statement - Note that the sentence in question (which is an NPOV sentence - "some people think that ....", which is true - I can name at least 1) was proposed by an outside editor to solve the edit war, and accepted by both sides. However, one of my attackers suddenly appeared at the article and instructed the "other side"

not to compromise. Further they insisted that compromise would not be tolerated. CheeseDreams 22:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Factual correction to SIrubenstein statement - I did not revert any of SIrubenstein's edits as claimed. I asked for comment (RFC) on the two versions, as I had no interest in a revert war. FT2 01:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I want to echo the phrase "something needs to be done about this". CD is methodically using wiki features to confuse and obfuscate. Boatloads of personhours are being wasted. In addition to requests above by Showspinner and Slrubenstein, other specifics listed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/CheeseDreams should be considered in the Arbitration. Case should be expedited as the frustration factor is high and a number of valuable editors, I believe, are nearing the alienation point. JDG 06:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would propose an IP ban, as the most effective way to be rid of sen disregard for Wikiquette. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would propose Eequor reads Wikipedia:Civility, where it states that calling for a ban is a serious abuse of wikipedia policy. CheeseDreams 22:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams continues to make thinly-veiled personal attacks; see [3]. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Caveat to Eequor statement - See the title of the section that edit was made in, and the nature of the "discussion", i.e. "YOU MUST DO THIS OR ELSE". I think the comparison is fair and accurate. CheeseDreams 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by HistoryBuffEr

Why is this RFAr being so warmly and hastily accepted:

• Even though the submitters have not even mentioned any attempts of dispute resolution, while

That you wrote this simply reveals that you did not read my complaint. Slrubenstein

Indeed. We went through an attempted mediation. There's also been an RFC, and many attempts at direct communication. john k 18:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• The RFAr right below (Quadell) was quickly rejected by 5 arbs for ostensibly not having attempted dispute resolution (even though the RFAr below does specifically mention dispute resolution attempts and futility of further attempts.)

HistoryBuffEr 07:38, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Mpolo

My tendency is to feel that reaching arbitration is an utter failure of the system, but sadly, it appears to be the correct step at this point. I have been involved in a large number of pages with CheeseDreams, generally in dispute with her. When it is more or less "one on one", she shows a certain amount of give and take, and we can actually work on writing an encyclopedia. However, the moment she is outnumbered, she seems to get extremely defensive, won't move from her point of view a millimeter, and tries other (generally disruptive) methods of getting her way. She is generally very reluctant to name particular sources, so that her contributions are very often of the form "Some scholars think...", "Some scholars think...", etc. She ignores requests to pinpoint that "some".

In response to the allegation of HistoryBuffEr that there has been no attempt at dispute resolution, I would point out the many comments on her Talk: page, at least 3 RFCs on Cultural and historical background of Jesus, a specific RFC on CheeseDreams herself, an informal mediation by FT2, and a formal mediation (between Slrubenstein and CheeseDreams/Amgine) that died before I even knew it was going on (Cheese rejected the mediator as non-neutral). Mpolo 08:22, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I rejected the mediator AFTER the mediator took sides, this action by the mediator irritating Amgine so much that Amgine has been neither seen nor heard since.

The RFC on me is demonstrably petty

The comments on my talk page you mention hardly count as dispute resolution - if you look, they are all "WE ARE RIGHT, do what we say" sorts of comments.

"Some scholars" - I would prefer not to have to write it at all, but when I did that, people went "oh, thats original research", and deleted the whole of the changes. I prefer to refer people to the bibliography, after all, thats what its there fore. Constantly going "X thinks, Y thinks, Z thinks" makes an article poorly readable, see Byron it isn't full of "X thinks that Byron went to Greece", "Y thinks they may have had a sexual relationship", for example CheeseDreams 21:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point is when it is a disputed fact, we need to identify who is supporting the point of view being presented. For instance, if I am writing about Biblical Archeology and cite Thiede as my authority, the reader can look at Thiede's other theories and see that he tends to be a little "out there" (which doesn't mean he is right or wrong, but he tends to be out of the mainstream), and the reader should be able to take that into account. Similarly, if the only support for an argument that Jesus spoke in koans were from a nineteenth-century Zen master who also believed that George Washington was secretly a Japanese Ninja, doesn't the reader deserve to know that? (hypothetical example, obviously) When it's the majority or the majority of some identifiable group, it's enough to state that. Thus, if I want to state that the Gospel of Mark was written in 45, I am forced to cite Thiede or O'Callahan or the like, while if I want to cite it as written shortly before 70, I can just say that "scholarly consensus" supports that date. That's what I'm asking for when I complain about "some scholars". Mpolo 09:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

And Byron having a gay relationship with a greek boy isnt a disputed fact? CheeseDreams 14:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As the article is written, the reader would assume that it is undisputed that Byron met and had an emotional relationship with a Greek boy. If this is disputed, then, yes, it should be credited with who has this theory. The "sexual relationship" is prefaced by a possibly, which is probably enough, given the context of a proven (according to the article) emotional relationship with the boy. The reader can imagine that any number of persons would suggest that connection without having to name names. On the other hand, the theory that Jesus was actually an amalgamation of Dionysus, Osirus, and Mithras is sufficiently non-mainstream (as is the theory that the Gospel of Mark was written in 45, to which I tend to be sympathetic, if skeptical) that the source of the argument needs to be identified. Mpolo 09:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by --Alterego

Implying that someone is a Nazi should be reason enough in itself.

I believe you mean Achtung, darling. CheeseDreams 21:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Alterego 22:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to state that I was implying someone was acting like a Nazi. CheeseDreams 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by CheeseDreams (which is bound to be drowned out by responses to it)

Given the nature of some of my edits, stating that academics actually have doubt about the validity of the bible, or of Jesus' historicity, it seems to me that in order to achieve a fair hearing those arbitrators who take on this case would most likely have to be non-Christian.

Since Wikipedia is currently dominated by American editors, and America has a high proportion of Christian editors, I suspect that this would prove somewhat difficult to implement. Nethertheless, if it is possible (for I know not the credes of the Arbitration comittee), then I ask that it be done.

CheeseDreams 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I take offense at CheeseDreams' allegation that no Christian arbitrator would possibly be able to hear her case fairly. I would respectfully ask that the arbitrators be selected using the normal wikipedia selection procedures, without regard to their religion, race, sex, or nationality. Wesley 01:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When one perceives one is being harrassed/attacked on religious grounds, is it any wonder one would request a non-religious jury? In fact, a reasonable case could be made that your restatement of CheeseDreams' allegation is a fair statement of the facts.

On the other hand, the ArbCom has procedures for determining who will be involved in a case. It's not appropriate (nor likely possible) to ask the ArbCom to discriminate on the basis of religion. - Amgine 03:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Amgine's comment

I am, frankly, appalled by this entire RfA. I do not know when I have seen a more poorly managed complaint, not to mention a more long-standing feud in which a user was subject to more abuses of administrative abilities without intervention or comment by other admins.

On at least two occasions, that I know of, admins engaged in a revert war with this user reverted and locked the page in question. On many occasions this user has been the subject of uncivil behaviour by admins. I'm sure if I began digging I would find further administrative abuses.

These admins are acting more like a lynch mob than cool and reasoned editors.

I have recused myself from the POVioring at Cultural and historical background of Jesus primarily because of the inability of this group to follow Wikipedia processes, policies and guidelines. I feel User:CheeseDreams has an abrasive, confrontational style of editing shared by others at Wikipedia, but has been targeted for stalking, harrassment, and personal attacks by an identifiable group. I have brought up elements of the case several times with admins; and before they know who the participants are they have unanimously agreed the admins involved are breaking wikipedia policies - but once they know who is involved they have chosen to not become involved.

Frankly, I've sharply cut back my involvement in Wikipedia due to this unchecked behaviour. I've observed this user going from an over-eager contributor to an embattled and defensive new user, and I completely sympathize. I do not foresee a positive outcome to this RfA.

- Amgine 02:38, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Dr Zen

CheeseDreams is no angel but he/she has been sorely pressed by another side that has shown a flagrant disregard for the norms of Wikipedia. I have no doubt that CheeseDreams deserves censure at this point, but had he/she been more sensitively handled by the editors he/she is dealing with here, this feud would never have grown to this proportion. I can only agree with Amgine that a keen contributor was embittered by his/her experience here. Yes, CD is rather confrontational, but I have certainly found in my short time here that, particularly on controversial topics, confrontation is the norm, and abrasive, unpleasant editors proliferate. It frankly astonishes me to see some of the names confronting him/her. How they have the nerve to complain about others is beyond me! CD's greatest sin, it seems, is that he/she did not parrot the policies of Wikipedia while disregarding them. If he/she had known the game better, he/she could, like her accusers, have left peremptory comments on their pages demanding "Don't make personal attacks" and claimed that this was resolving the dispute. I wholly endorse the comments by Amgine about the behaviour of admins here. I further note that several other admins gave licence to some of that behaviour by stating that it was perfectly all right to breach the policy in the pursuit of an edit war, instead of censuring the admin involved. None of the parties tried to find a true consensus that I can see, and I can certainly see why CD would feel ganged up on, particularly with the rallying to join in the RfC. Frankly, I believe the best solution would be to bar all parties involved from articles in any way connected with Jesus for a couple of weeks, and for those who believe that Wikipedia's policies are worthwhile to spend more time trying to convince all the parties of that and less on petty disputes and crusades to victimise editors they do not agree with, because there are no good guys here. I fear that the sentiment against CheeseDreams will lead to his/her being singled out and made a victim, though. Dr Zen 23:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Filiocht

I have to say I find this whole thing rather disturbing. While I agree that CheeseDreams is being rather abrasive, I sense that the main driver here is an attempt by Christians to keep perfectly valid material that points to Christ as a mythological figure in the tradition of life-death-rebirth deities out of the article on the Historicity of Jesus. There's more that one POV being flaunted here, and because the Christian caucus is well organised, they seem to be able to drown out opposition pretty effectively. The fact that this is going on at all is leading me to consider withdrawing from the project altogether. In the meantime, I fully endorse Dr Zen's proposal above. Ban them all for a while, let them cool down, and remember that Wikipedia should, and must, not privilege any world-view, religious, political or philosophical, over any other if it is to be what it says it wants to be. Filiocht 11:12, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

On reflection, (and thanks to User:Jwrosenzweig), I would like to state that I now do not believe that there is an actual Christian caucus at work here. However, I find it all too easy to believe that CD may well think that there is. Filiocht 16:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Alas, the reason Cheesedreams believes there is a Christian caucus at work is, whenever someone challenges Cheesedreams, she claims that the challenger is a Christian fundamentalist. Slrubenstein 19:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Noel

I am unfamiliar with the details of the points under debate, but I do think there are problems with both sides. E.g. what's the problem with likening some of Jesus' sayings to koans? The whole point of a koan is to open your mind to a new point of view; seem pretty apropos to me.

My main comment is that I'm appalled at the amount of time and energy being wasted here, both by the direct participants, and those who are called in to adjudicate. Because of experience in a past 'life' I'm particularly sensitive to the strain this is putting on the latter. These people are volunteers doing a thankless job, who have limited time and energy, and the rate at which new flamage is being generated make it quadruply hard to figure out what the dickens is going on here. If y'all would just be quiet for a while, everyone would be better off.

You hit the nail on the head. What on earth is the problem with likening some of Jesus's sayings to koans? They are on the face of it very much like them! It really does look at a lot like motivated editors have tried to suppress a POV, rather than convince its holder to change their views. Dr Zen 23:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem saying that some people believe Jesus' sayings resemble koans. However, simply saying that he taught using koans (as one version of the edit did) is very different. It presumes that Jesus (a) knew what a koan was, which would have to presume his Godly omniscience given the absence of Zen masters in the first century Roman empire; (b) was attempting to bring his listener's to Enlightenment, that being the purpose of a koan. That second would further presume that Jesus had something like a Buddhist concept of Enlightenment, even though he was raised as a Jew and there were no Buddhists around. Doesn't that make any sense at all to you? On the other hand, today in the 21st century it's not so unusual to find people who have read at least some koans and at least some of Jesus' teachings, and of these, some who see a similarity between them. This is far more plausible than the blithe claim that Jesus deliberately used koans in the first century. Wesley 04:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you notice, only the original edit said koans were used. The insertion by me after revert war 1 was in accordance with "some people think..", the compromise suggested by Andrevan and accepted by me and a few others. Dr Zen further modified this and made it even less "this is the case".

However, a POV caucus proceeded to remove the mention all together. I restored it to Dr Zen's version. A revert war ensued.

It seems as if even the statement "absolutely no-one on earth, not even a single lone editor, thinks Jesus and koans have anything at all, not even remotely, to do with each other" would be unacceptable. CheeseDreams 20:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.s. Wesley, It is POV to assert that Jesus did not have something like a Buddhist concept of Enlightenment.

Especially when the Gnostics did, and that there is a very good argument that the original Christians (e.g. Paul) were gnostic rather than literalist. Especially with the massive evidence of attempts to supress this (e.g. Historiography of the Pauline Epistles, 3 Corinthians) CheeseDreams 20:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by FT2

I have been quite heavily involved with the CheeseDreams-SIrubenstein dispute, to the extent of acting for a month as informal arbitrator in one of their disputes. Although at various times one or the other has worried I was "taking sides", I consider myself neutral but informed in their differences. This is my attempt to describe how I see it.

Like a lot of situations, both of the two main parties (CheeseDreams and SIrubenstein) have good points and weaknesses. I see the problems spreading out from these two individuals. In other words, save for these two, such a long winded dispute would probably never have arisen, and others would not have gotten involved. So I feel strongly the heart of this is to decide how to handle these two individuals, figure out which of them has done what, and then work outwards to any others involved.

In overview, both have acted rationally at times, and unhelpfully at others. CheeseDreams has acted in a manner intended to annoy and provoke at times, and in this, people who comment on her are accurate. SIrubenstein has favoured his own view of research and validity a little too much and cut others off without sufficient respect for their views and appreciation of the points they were making. (I was one, but I exclude myself, Im thinking of "in general" to keep it impersonal). Both have at times "risen to the bait" and posted lengthy debates to "prove" points to rebut points which contradict points which were misread and replied to by points... which as others have noted is a serious drain on goodwill.

As a result both have at times lost the point that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum for personal disputes. In addition both fight across a broad range of issues in thrusts and parrys, never resolving much and always going back to re-open issues which were almost closed before. As a result there are always 15 or so items open and long threads of interjected stuff with parrying and thrusts and counter attacks on each of them at any one time. I am going to discuss both. (The choice of "who first" is not relevant, nothing should be read into it).

CheeseDreams when feeling attacked, rises to the bait hard. She attacks back, writes a lot of excess wordage, uses condescending language top cut others down, and picks on unimportant flaws in others POV or unfortunate wordings to score points and seek to get apologies for. This is very antagonistic behaviour. She has said she is unable to focus on one thing at a time because thats not how her mind works. She looks for alliances when under attack, and I sadly do feel it would not be not inaccurate to say that she does try too quickly to see things and place others "with me or against me" at times, at some cost to the smooth flow of wikipedia. I dont have a problem with the RFCs, just that she might have sorted some out without tying up others' limited time by seeking to get people "on her side".

SIrubenstein is in many ways different. He is more prone to a different kind of problem, and in some ways harder to pin down. He lacks an appreciation that often, his view (even if supported by his profound knowledge of reference material) is still only one view. That information which is sourced from less perfect sources or less eloquent contributors still has a place, and he overlooks that knowledge is a team game, others ways of thinking though not so academically sound perhaps, should not be overruled, because often the heart of lay-wisdom is not insignificant. He needs to learn that you cannot lead by force, or by demand, you have to carry others with you, and work together. Even having a group who support you is not enough, you have to avoid making others feel ignored or slighted (not always easy). Collaboration means sometimes slightly less than perfect stuff gets in, and thats okay. You work as a team with the topic and material, even though you feel you could do better and more precisely alone. The price of teamwork is we help each other... which means we support others attempts to work together, not "diss" them for it.

I am unsure how one reconciles this. I can't even say I'm "right". But thats my sense of some of the core issues which are causing it to go wrong. For all I kniow, tell both of them to drop edits to articles if they cant work together. Anyway this is my contriibution, others will comment if its valid or not. FT2 01:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

(Afterthought - I suspect their wishes, what they want, is something like this: SIrubenstein needs to believe that the information going in, is good quality and reputable. CheeseDreams needs to feel that others are listening to the points she is making and not sidelining her when she asks lay questions. And both need to feel not under personal attack, nor that the article stalls due to disputes. Thats just on the side) FT2 01:19, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

(Further afterthought - See this post [4] [long section at end of post] for an example of CheeseDreams making strong, positive, and powerfully rational argument in these debates) FT2 13:11, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

FT2 is absolutely correct when he writes that I "to believe that the information going in, is good quality and reputable." When it is clear to me that someone knows more about a topic than I, I accept what they contribute in good faith. But if someone makes a contribution concerning something I have researched, and if what they contribute is inconsistent with what I have found, I think it is vital to the project that I ask for citation or verification. FT2 seems to think that in a collaborative project, we have to compromise on the quality or verifiability of our work. I genuinely feel this is a dangerous policy and I reject it, vigorously. I have been in many arguments on Wikipedia where I was soon convinced that the other person was right; I have been involved in arguments where the other person concludes I was right. Either way, the result is a better Wikipedia. Slrubenstein 19:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

[edit] Format of the RfA page

I'm not too familiar with RfA and similar proceedings, so I have to ask if the sort of jumble we already see on this new RfA is the way it's meant to be. Apparently, CheeseDreams went to a bunch of other pages (especially the RfC involving him/her) and copied n' pasted masses of material here. The section titled "Final Request By CheeseDreams", for instance, made its first appearance as part of the RfC. It is disorienting to read statements made at another time and for another purpose masquerading as new. Can anything sanction the re-use of editors' comments in pages and contexts they did not originally intend them for? This is the sort of Page-Cheeseification I hope these proceedings will bring an end to (as a side benefit to the ending of revert wars, constant hostility, vandalism, dizzying redirections/retitles and POV powerplays). It's a bad sign that the RfA itself permits Cheeseification. JDG 10:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams has a section of the page where he can put what he wants. If he makes a short clear rational statement of his situation he has an advantage. If he makes a long rambling stream of consciousness presentation he is at a disadvantage. I think we probably should establish a limit, which I suppose must be expressed as a maximum number of words. The same probably goes for the evidence page. Fred Bauder 12:07, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

I see. But when you say "he can put what he wants", that includes statements made by others on pages other than this RfA? In the course of his massive pasting he has brought forward complete comments made by other users and the result is that it looks like these users were contributing to this RfA when who knows what page they actually meant their comments for. Also, if CD is to carry forward great swaths of an RfC to this page, can it be acceptable that he finely scissors out only material favorable to him? JDG 13:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)...(added) By the way CheeseDreams, it strikes you as a good strategy to copy material from battles you lost to a new battle here? In those pages the votes for summary approval ran against you usually by about 15:1, and the Arbitrators voted 3-0 against you with 1 recuse on the page you copy the most text from. Plainly your vituperations and character witnesses on those pages had the worst effect possible for you, so why make us all read it all again (or read it until we realize it's the same stuff)? Oh right, half the appeal of all this for you is to have people tripping around after you, wasting time. Ok, good strat, then. JDG 14:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please note, I kept the dates in their comments. The dates should be sufficiently informative for an intelligent reader not to misinterpret their origin. Cheesedreams 19:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course the reader will figure it all out after getting his bearings, but why put people through this? I mean, as one of the Arbs said above, you have a much better chance with a compact, coherent defense than you do with this mess anyway. I actually think a lot of your problem is you don't realize all the trouble you put people to with all your redirects and moves, unexplained or confusingly explained deletions and edits, duplicate namespaces etc.,. In other words, if you worked to simplify your use of the wiki, while of course developing an appreciation for the fringe status of many of your POVs, you just might turn into a valuable contributor. Instead you're just bulldozing ahead, hitting 'Save Page' like it's your source of air. On a few subjects I have a POV as minority as most of yours. In these cases, if I manage to get even a small mention of my position in an article I consider it a victory and am satisfied. This is the frame of mind you need to adopt instead of struggling to make your fringe POV the dominant one in any given article-- it won't happen and you'll just get endlessly browbeaten. So, seriously, think of turning the page, inform the Arbs you've done so, and edit accordingly. JDG 22:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the Arb.s think that style of presentation is a valid criteria for judging guilt then they are bad aritrators and should be immediately sacked. CheeseDreams 14:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unlike YOU, I do not seek victory, I seek truth and NPOV. CheeseDreams 14:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 'victory' I speak of is only a victory because truth, from my vantage point, gets its due. This question is THE pivotal one for you. Will you accept that most of your views are extremely minority and therefore accept they will not be prominent in articles, or will you continue this attempt to exhaust everybody into giving your POVs dominance? Think about it for a moment: a well-crafted, albeit brief, expression of a minority POV can be very powerful in an article. You can become a strong advocate for truth-as-you-see-it by adjusting your expectations and shooting for these small but powerful paragraphs. This sounds like I'm encouraging editors to be advocates above all, which is ostensibly against the #1 rule of NPOV. But in reality it is impossible to be POV-free and contributing strong expressions of a certain POV in an article balanced by other expressions of other POVs results in ideal articles. This could be your role if you just stop for a moment of introspection and adjust your approach. JDG 20:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Will you accept that majority views are not automatically truth? CheeseDreams 18:33, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Silly argument. Will you accept that minority views are also not automatically truth? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You both need to accept that you are partly right and partly wrong. And that it's not about being right and wrong on a personal level, it's about building an encyclopaedia, lest we forget. Filiocht 12:04, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wheres the good faith

This page is starting to look like a legal document. Why? Is the matter so complicated? Bensaccount 21:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually it looks not at all like a legal document. This rambling, on and on, is exactly the opposite of a legal document which would focus on the points in issue. Fred Bauder 22:48, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Slrubenstein Rebuts CheesDreams' Response

CheeseDreams has four responses to my complaint

1. Asking for bans is a serious violation of Wikipedia:Civility
2. Slrubenstein is serially uncivil to editors who disagree with him (see evidence presented by Amgine for a small selection of this)
3. Slrubenstein trys to pack the house to win votes
4. If I am to be blocked from editing Cultural and historical background of Jesus, then I cannot see why Slrubenstein should not be blocked as well.

My rebuttal:

1. Asking to ban someone may be a violation of civility. I did not do this until over a month of being worn down by CheeseDreams' continuous disregard for my contributions, and her insistance on unverifiable or flat out wrong information in articles. In this context, asking for consideration of a ban through a due-process mechanism like arbitration is not a violation of policy
2. I have disagreed with many people who have endorsed the complaint against CheeseDreams (e.g. JDG and Wesley). I alsways strive to be civil, and in most cases succeed. When I have tried to be civil with CheeseDreams, she has simply dismissed me e.g. [5].
3. I often ask people who have either already participated in a discussion, or who I believe would be interested in an article, to comment on ongoing discussions. As CheeseDreams' examples reveal, I almost never ask the person to take my side; sometimes I ask them if they think I am wrong, usually I just ask for their opinion. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and I see nothing wrong with what I have done. CD suggests that this is not a "normal" way of requesting comment, and wonders why I don't use the "normal" route of RfC. But other editors explained to CD that what I did is in fact normal. RfC is actually a relatively recent innovation (only 11 months old, I think) -- in the years before, contacting people through their talk pages was a very normal way to get their attention and ask for their input. Moreover, RfC is explicitly part of the dispute resolution process, and is meant for cases where no consensus is possible. At the time that I contacted other people, it was not because consensus was not possible, it was because there was an ongoing discussion where I thought their views would help the process of improving the article. I certainly was not seeking formal intervention in a dispute.
4. CheeseDreams should be blocked from the article in question because she is ignorant of the topic; has displayed no interest in doing serious research; refuses to verify her claims; and dismisses my verifiable claims based on research. I should not be blocked because I have done considerable research on the topic and have made well-informed, verifiable NPOV contributions.

CheeseDreams' response to my complaint is not to defend herself, but rather to attack me. She dismisses the "five or six" sources I rely on as highly biased -- but these are five or six books that represent the cutting edge of Biblical and 1st century research, written by authors who are widely recognized and cited as the preeminent authorities on Jesus, the NT, and late antiquity Jewish history. She claims they are biased simply because she is ignorant and will not accept any contribution I make. She has never explained why she thinks they are biased or, indeed, what their bias is.

I know that the complaint is against her and not me, but since she has attacked me I am compelled to respond. If any of the arbitrators want evidence to support my rebuttal I will provide it. In the meantime, please note that CheeseDream's response to my complaint is typical of her behavior on talk pages and gets at the heart of all the complaints against her: she refuses to work with others. When anyone questions an edit she makes, she does not reply with to the question, she simply attacks the person asking the question. This kind of behavior reveals that she has no faith in other editors. Talk pages are meant to be forums in which many people can discuss how to improve an article. Apparently, this is not CheeseDreams' interest Slrubenstein 21:46, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ChessDreams Rebuts Shrubblesten's Response to CheesDreams

Slrubenstein has responses to my rebuttal

1. Asking to ban someone may be a violation of civility.

I agree. I don't think hypocrisy should be tolerated, does anyone else?

1. CheeseDreams is flat out wrong about information

Isn't that POV, and, according to Arrogance, fits certain definitions quite accurately.

1. Slrubenstein alsways strives to be civil

So is that why he attacked FT2 as having "specious and ignorant reasoning" rather than provide a proper counter argument to him?

1. Slrubenstein often asks people who he believes would be interested in an article to comment

Odd how The Rev of Bru was never asked

Even odder that normal methods of asking for comment such as RfC were not used by Slrubenstein

Even odder still how someone arriving from RfC (after FT2 put a request up) called Maurreen had her reasoning dismissed by Slrubenstein when she preferred a different version

1. CheeseDreams should be blocked from the article in question because she is ignorant of the topic

There is absolutely zero evidence of this being accurate

There is quite a bit of evidence that Slrubenstein is ignorant of the topic

• E.g. does not know that Nazoreans and Mandaeans are the same
• E.g. does not know that the bible mentions non-zero followers of John-the-baptist after Jesus' death

1. CheeseDreams dismisses Slrubenstein's claims, which Slrubenstein states are based on research

Wikipedia:No personal research

The reliance on just 5 or 6 sources (as admitted elsewhere by Slrubenstein), who seem highly biased to me having looked them up, is inaccurate reportage

1. Slrubenstein should not be blocked because he has done considerable research on the topic and made well-informed, verifiable NPOV contributions

Totally disputed

1. CheeseDreams refuses to work with others

I work quite happily with Wesley, Amgine, FT2, Mpolo, Rednblu, Ungtss, amongst others

1. When anyone questions an edit CheeseDreams makes, she does not reply with to the question, she simply attacks the person asking

Totally disputed. See the archives of Talk:Jesus and syncretism (or wherever it is redirected to).

CheeseDreams 18:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the last week or two, CheeseDreams and I have managed some productive discussion and work, especially on Jesus and syncretism. On other articles, CheeseDreams has more or less refused to work with me and others, including the notorious Cultural and historical background of Jesus and more recently New Testament view on Jesus' life. See [6] for a revert war from early December that seems to have died down in favor of a compromise now. While there was some discussion, there was far less than the number of reverts that took place. In short, it seems to me that CheeseDreams often either ignored discussion or attacked the person, but lately shows some signs of learning how to engage in an actual discussion. Time will tell how productive these discussions turn out to be. Take these observations for whatever they're worth.

Looking at other points, I would agree that CheeseDreams has shown some ignorance of topics edited (and I don't say this because I disagree with her); normally this wouldn't be a problem, but when her edits extend to refactoring entire sets of articles and major restructurings, coupled with complete distrust of anyone who objects or questions, it has been problematic. However, this is another point that may be improving of late. Wesley 04:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I have stated at least 7 times before, I have refused to respond directly to Slrubenstein because Slrubenstein has refused to comply with Wikipedia:Civility and apologise for accusing me of racism. CheeseDreams 20:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

I would like to request a temporary injunction until this matter is sorted out. Cheesedreams has been making major changes to Historicity of Jesus without any major discussion on the talk page. Also, she's been leaving in blank headings with sectstub tags and expecting that this will be left alone. Because of this I am requesting a temporary injunction on her editing pages. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ta bu shi da yu

I ask for a temporary injunction and would like to bring to the arbitrators attention the way that CheeseDreams has been editing the Historicity of Jesus article. For a while the article had two articles in it, and the one that CheeseDreams added had sections without any content! Now major structural and content changes are being made with little or no talk on the discussion page. Also, CheeseDreams has been making personal attacks on people's user talk pages. See [7] (though this person was just as bad and got blocked as a result). See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams. I would request that all personal attacks cease immediately.

I think that either she should change the way she edits, or she should be banned. I've dealt with some real POV warriors, but they haven't made badly structured edits and changes like I've see CheeseDreams make! This needs to stop. Also, you'll notice that they have mostly been on articles that are to do with Christianity. It seems she has an agenda, and I would like the ArbCom to get her to stop the POV edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The only agenda I have is truth, accuracy, and NPOV. As you will see at WP:AN where this particular edit is discussed, the edits I have made are in line with modern scholarship which the prior state of the article did not reflect. CheeseDreams 18:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.s. I would request that all personal attacks cease immediately implies compliance with Wikipedia:Civility. Which, by the way, explicitely states that calling for a ban is a serious violation of the policy.

Hypocrisy is wonderful, isn't it? CheeseDreams 18:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong. It is totally within policy to ask for a temporary injunction, and I'd advise you to read policy more clearly. Also, CheeseDreams is implying here that I have made personal attacks on her person: I would request direct evidence of this be presented, or if she cannot then she remains quiet. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see temporary injunction at all mentioned on Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, although Wikipedia:Civility does condemn calling for such things. Evidence of so doing is about 20 lines above. CheeseDreams 21:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, may have made a mistake here. However, it is perfectly OK to request a temporary injunction on a user. This is done all the time. The fact that you're editing in a way that forced me to request one should be a concern for you, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I really must ask for someone to tell me how the request for a temporary injunction is going! CheeseDreams POV pushing is getting absurd. Check out my comments on Talk:Authorship of the Pauline epistles. CheeseDream's POV is unjustifiable! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:05, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should maybe re-write that. You appear to have written Check out [TBSDY's] comments on [a talk page]. Such POV is unjustifiable, which would seem to be an accusation against yourself. CheeseDreams 01:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol! so it seems. Have fixed. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modest proposal on RfCs

It seems that some editors are calling for CheeseDreams to be barred from topics related to religion. I have no idea if that's merited, but I suggest that CheeseDreams be forbidden from making new RfCs, which I consider to be a less weighty remedy. RfCs must be certified by two users. In effect, the other certifying party would have to make any future potential RfC, and CheeseDreams join.

Although she has stopped making them, I believe this step is necessary as she was obviously familiar with the procedure yet continued filing new ones in the past (see my evidence). Building this into the judgment ensures she will have the means to request comment when warranted, but not the means to unilaterally disrupt and harass users through RfC. Cool Hand Luke 10:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VFD discussion

This page was proposed for deletion December 2004. The archived discussion is available at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vandalism_in_progress/CheeseDreams_controversy

[edit] CheeseDreams has allegedly vandalised my user page

I really must ask what's happening to that temporary injunction! See [8] to see what she did. She added {{dubious}} tags and {{totallydisputed}}. I have been forced to list her on vandalism in progress. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You insisted on my talk page that absolutely everything in wikipedia must be verifiable, and in fact cited, sources being everywhere specified, in addition to totally convincing evidence that it isn't personal research. If you didn't want me to do it, you shouldn't have made the request. CheeseDreams 01:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of temporary injunction

Please see [9] where Cheese Dreams violated her temporary injunction. Not only this, but she created Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause, clearly POV templates. NPOV will do fine The edit I pointed out before is also a means to adding her POV bias to these articles. So, I've blocked her for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, ok. I just wish you solicited a third party to enforce this. As petitioners (is that the term?) we might have too much the appearance of bias. Cool Hand Luke 10:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, there is a minor controversy on IRC at the moment over what was meant by "Article". I define article as including templates, others do not. I say that the intention of the temp injunction was to stop her from POV warring in Christian related articles, and that is why I deleted the Templates. Was this the intention of ArbCom? If it was not I will restore the templates myself. However, I will be extremely unhappy about this because (ironically) they are POV in themselves and will increase tension no end on Wikipedia. After all, I don't see an Template:APOV (atheist POV), a Template:QPOV (Qu'ran POV), a Template:JPOV (Jewish POV) or even a Template:BuddhaPOV! Why target one group? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a significant amount of articles or a systemic bias which appears to reflect QPOV, or BuddhaPOV, or even APOV (which is unusual and indicative of systemic BPOV bias because IT is generally considered a region where the majority are atheist or agnostic, and because the naturalist premise of secular scholars investigating such issues would be expected to show through). JPOV would be a form of BPOV on the old testament so is duplicating it. But BPOV isn't about interpretation by religion X, its about the assumption of literal accuracy of the bible. Given that most people in the english speaking world do not assume that the bible is literally true, particularly the older parts, the fact that some articles here do is an indicator of massive bias, and needs to be marked as such. CheeseDreams 01:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you miss the point. Who cares if it's just an religious group you are targetting? Why not make an Template:APOV? If Template:BPOV survives TFD I'm going to create that template as the community will have obviously said that it's OK to target groups. That will only be fair. Also, you cannot just make a sweeping statement that given that most people in the western world don't believe in the literal accuracy of the Bible we should have a template that targets a particular group, because what you have here is an editorial from an atheist's POV at the top of the page. Why be so specific? It's NPOV, not "Bible" POV. Another thing (you appear to be ignorant on this matter), Jews (as a rule) do not believe in the New Testament and have their own setup of books, so how my theoretical Tempate:JPOV becomes part of BPOV, I cannot imagine. You are most definitely pushing an agenda, and it seems that you'll not stop. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It gets worse. See [[10]]. How many sock puppets does she have? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On the topic of Christianity and Judaism, including CheeseDreams, 4. CheeseDreams 01:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh no—you got me wrong. I certainly think the templates were a violation of the injunction, and she's even added a series of her new tags without discussion even though that was one of the original complaints about her—I just think that this is such an obvious violation that it would be no problem to gain even more credibility by having another ban her. Cool Hand Luke 11:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, but is it possible to clarify that templates are part of the injunction against her? User:Vague Rant seems to think otherwise, and it would be nice to have this cleared up. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe the injunction was enacted after she made those edits. I'm going to double check this and probably unblock her. Rhobite 18:09, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

My last edit on the relevant day was at 19:22, I was notified at 19:46. The block was therefore unjustified (although I had already finished with Wikipedia for the day and gone to see my boyfriend in his new flat, so it didn't really have much effect). Nethertheless, I would like a formal apology. CheeseDreams 01:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is my interpretation of this correct? CheeseDreams created those templates before the injunction was enacted? If so, they should be undeleted immediately. Besides which, their content is irrelevant. One person can't make a judgment call and delete it because they don't like the content. They were and are on TFD, and it should be consensus which decides upon their deletion, not a single user. - Vague | Rant 02:08, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Enlisting User:Neutrality's help, I was informed that Template:BPOV was created on 09:23, Jan 6, 2005. The injunction came into effect on 19:39, Jan 6, 2005. These templates should be immediately undeleted. - Vague | Rant 02:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams is adding comments to the talk page of a Jesus-related article. I am not sure if this violates the injunction, but I think it is an example of trolling: [11] Slrubenstein 19:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The injunction says CheeseDreams may not edit articles relating to Jesus. I don't think this includes talk pages. If you feel she is personally attacking you in article talk pages, you should stop engaging her. Rhobite 21:07, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

If she is attacking him personally, then she should be stopped. Period. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you read the 'Reliability and sources' section that SLR linked to above, it is clear that CheeseDreams initially the authored the section as an overt attempt to discredit Slrubenstein personally in the eyes of other readers and editors of the article, rather than to constructively discuss changes to the article. Rhobite, in this instance I fear you are blaming the victim for being attacked, though I doubt that's what you intended. Wesley 06:32, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

I was wondering if there might be some clarification as to what would constitute a "Christianity-related article." Are articles on books of the Old Testament to be considered Christianity-related, for instance? What about the articles on Herod the Great or Josephus? john k 00:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)