Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by jguk

[edit]

27 November 2004 onwards: Koans

[edit]
  • jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • For the discussion on "koans" on the Jesus talk page see the talk page from this point[2] onwards.
  • jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • For evidence of the revert war see the history page of the Jesus article from 27 November onwards [3], noting the large number of different editors disagreeing with CheeseDreams. An illustrative example of what the argument is about is here: [4].

5 December 2004: RfC evidence

[edit]
  • jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Information from RfC's raised by CheeseDreams has been retained contrary to explicit instructions, and contrary to promises given to RfC complainants. The promise is that: 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, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with jguk 18:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted.

The proof that this has been retained is in Cool Hand Luke's citation at 2.2 of the main RfAr page [5]. I suggest the RfC evidence is disregarded by the Arbcom.

Evidence presented by Eequor

[edit]

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]
  1. User:CheeseDreams began a revert war, and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule (7 times on Nov. 28), on the Jesus page: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
  2. User:CheeseDreams would not co-operate with a poll concerning the revert war, which was created in order to resolve the situation Talk:Jesus#Koans_-_Poll
  3. User:CheeseDreams frequently uses personal attacks:
    1. "point out the patheticness of the counter argument" [13]
    2. "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself" [14]
    3. "The psalms also say that heaven is held up from the earth by 4 pillars in the sea, amongst other stupidities" [15]
  4. Examples of Cheesedreams adding {{cleanup}},{{NPOV}}, and {{cleanup}} tags to 50+ pages that he had never worked on: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]
  5. Redirected links to Sol Invictus to reflect sen POV despite opposition on talk pages: [24]
  6. Interfered with attempts to restore the original version of Elagabalus Sol Invictus and move it back to Sol Invictus: [25] [26] [27]
  7. Redirected links to Christology and subsequently listed it on VfD, a move for which there is no support
  8. User talk page vandalism, where he changes "tastes" to "testes": [28]
  9. Words fail: (from VfD)
    • For the love of God, keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    If Jesus is God, then isn't that Homoeroticism ? CheeseDreams 21:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  10. New Testament view on Jesus' life Repeated reversions accompanied by accusations of vandalism and little discussion or engagement on the issues on the accompanying Talk page. See [29], [30], [31], and [32]. In discussion, chief argument in favor of disputed section seems to be a threat to delete the entire article if it goes. In edit comments, CheeseDreams also suggests the section initially came about as the result of an edit war, which appears to be the same tactic being used again. Wesley 04:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  11. CheeseDreams persists in trying to insert koan into Jesus despite all discussions, which cannot be seen as editing in good faith. [33] [34] [35]
  12. Has additionally revived Category:Bible stories from deletion, despite "delete" or "rename" receiving 80% of the votes at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories, and restored the category to every article it had been removed from. [36] [37] [38], etc.
  13. Allegations of Nazism: [39]


Users complain about CheeseDream's tags placed without Talk

[edit]

Here are the complaints of other users to User:CheeseDreams' "editing" (actually just placing tags in them without comment) of articles all within the disputed Category:Bible stories as CheeseDreams disregards the basic rules of Wikiquette. IZAK 05:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC):

  1. Bel and the Dragon: "Check the User contributions of User:CheeseDreams. This is just one of a long series of articles that has been labelled. Wetman" [40] and "there is no dispute unless you quantify it on the talk page so it can be debated. you refuse to do so, so there's no dispute to even respond to. Explain or stop putting the tags there User:DreamGuy" [41]
  2. Belshazzar: "These three labels are being cast about like grass seed by newly-arrived User:CheeseDreams. They are disfiguring, but their value in this entry, where the User has made no edits, can be assessed by a look at this user's contributions. Wetman" [42]
  3. Book of Daniel: "Please explain POV or style problems when adding NPOV and cleanup tags User:Rhobite" [43]
  4. Book of Job: "Please explain NPOV, cleanup, and expansion tags User:Rhobite" [44]
  5. Cain and Abel: "Please explain cleanup tag User:Rhobite" [45]
  6. Creation according to Genesis: "All you have to do is change the page as you see fit. The NPOV tag is not appropriate for this page. User:Rednblu" [46]
  7. Daniel: "No disputes in Talk: page; this article is not a stub User:Jayjg" [47]
  8. Deborah: "no debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, one is enough User:Jayjg" [48]
  9. Delilah: No debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, on is enough User:Jayjg" [49]
  10. Elijah: "this article is not a stub, and Cheesedreams did not his his NPOV objections. Hence removing those labels. User:Robert Merkel" [50]
  11. Elisha: "There are no disputes on the Talk: page, and you don't need two stub notices user:Jayjg" [51]
  12. Esther: See User:CheeseDreams most Un-Wikipedian rantings as he placed these comments in bold (sic) on the actual article page: (NPOV) BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VIEW OF THE BIBLE STORIES MEANING.IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT HERODITUS LIVED VERY VERY MANY YEARS LATER THAN THE STORY IS SET. IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THE ACTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE STORY AND THAT OF ISTAR MORE THAN SUPERFICIALLY. ((expansion)) BECAUSE THERE IS HARDLY ANY CONTENT HERE AND MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN MANY MANY TRACTS, DISSERTATIONS, PAPERS, SERMONS, MEDITAIONS, ETC. ON EVERY BIT OF THE BIBLE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL." [52]
  13. House of Joseph: "it already has a stub notice, it doesn't need two" User:Jayjg" [53]
  14. Jacob: "This article is not a stub, and I see no dispute on the Talk: page. Also, please don't revert blindly, you lost valuable text. User:Jayjg" [54]
  15. Job (person): "No disputes on Talk: page. Also, one stub entry is plenty, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [55]
  16. John the Baptist: "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Amgine User:Theresa knott" [56]
  17. Jonah: "One stub notice is plently, don't need two User:Jayjg" [57]
  18. Mordechai: "this is not relevant to the WP:CFD debate" User:Jfdwolff [58]
  19. Noah: "- unneeded dispute headers User:Sam Spade" [59]
  20. Talk:Saint Peter: "Whether the category is kept or not, Peter is not a Bible story. I'm confused about why it would be appropriate to list this article in that category" User:Aranel" [60]
  21. Sodom and Gomorrah: "- dispute headers, not helpful here User:Sam Spade" [61]
  22. Solomon: "not convinced of any need to have a cleanup (if you disagree - please copyedit the article yourself) User:Jongarrettuk" [62]
  23. Solomon's Temple: "this article is not a stub, and there is no dispute on the Talk: page" User:Jayjg" [63]
  24. Susanna: "No dispute on Talk: page. Also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [64]
  25. Ten Commandments: "rv, see talk User:Yoshiah ap" [65]
  26. The Last Supper: "No disputes on Talk: page. Also two stub notices are not required, one is enough User:Jayjg" [66]
  27. Talk:Three Wise Men: "NPOV and Cleanup labels: These have been applied recently to this article (and to others) by User:CheeseDreams. That user's actual contributions to this entry may be assessed at the Page History. Wetman" [67] "What an amazingly trivial matter to raise a formal dispute over. Assuming, of course, that is what he/she is disputing. User:CheeseDreams, would you please clarify here on the talk page exactly what you are disputing, or I will feel free simply to remove those labels. -- User:Jmabel" [68]
  28. Zacchaeus: "No disputes on Talk: page; also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" c[69]
  29. Piglet 17:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  30. Christology: Tags were added without comment by CheeseDreams, removed by another user with explanation, added again by CheeseDreams. Submitted to Votes for Deletion after some discussion on Wikiproject:Jesus which did not reach consensus about what to do with the article, despite claims to the contrary. Wesley 14:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  31. Lady Tara 09:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  32. Ta bu shi da yu 21:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) CheeseDreams added {{totallydisputed}} and {{dubious}} tags to my user page. Also made many disparaging comments in comment tags. See [70].

Evidence presented by geni

[edit]

<24 November> <2004>

[edit]


Evidence presented by MPolo

[edit]

12 December

[edit]
  • 14:16, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • [User:CheeseDreams] is apparently operating a sock-puppet: [User:Cheesedreams] (Though to her credit, she is not hiding the fact... Note that the page redirects to the CheeseDreams user page). This account is certainly editing: [72] I suspect that this is to get around blocking, but it may be just an anti-typo account. As such, I don't know that this is really evidence, but thought that people should be aware of it.


Evidence presented by Slrubenstein

[edit]

Evidence pertains to three complaints: first, that CheeseDreams is generally obstructionist; second, that she refuses to verify her work; third, that practically speaking she wishes to block me from the article Cultural and historical background of Jesus. She accomplishes this in two ways: first, by refusing to accept anything I write on the talk page, and second, by reverting my work.

7 January

[edit]

Here is a good example of Cheese Dreams trolling: [73]. Talk pages are for discussion aimed at improving the article. Here, however, Cheese Dreams is simply making up things that indicate her interest not in improving the article, but in wasting the time of editors.

Here is a good example of CD trying to ban me unilaterally from the article. Context: FT2 made some changes to the article. Some were good, some were not. I explained which one's I thought were not good, and made changes to the article. I consider this to be model behavior for an editor: I accepted some of what another editor did, and I explained carefully my objections to other things he did.

Cheesedreams here threatens to revert any change I make to the article.

If Cheesedreams reverts any change to the article, that is tantamount to blocking me from the article. See [74]

1-8 December

[edit]

These provide evidence of general obstructionism.

  • 00:05, 8 Dec 2004
  • 00:07, 7 Dec 2004
  • 07:15, 6 Dec 2004
  • 19:30, 5 Dec 2004
  • 19:27, 5 Dec 2004
  • 12:41, 5 Dec 2004
  • 22:57, 4 Dec 2004
  • 21:46, 3 Dec 2004
  • 21:42, 3 Dec 2004
  • 21:13, 3 Dec 2004
  • 20:36, 3 Dec 2004
  • 19:42, 3 Dec 2004
  • 19:14, 3 Dec 2004
  • 21:50, 2 Dec 2004
  • 00:37, 2 Dec 2004
  • 18:55, 1 Dec 2004
  • 01:12, 1 Dec 2004
    • In each of the above instances, she repeatedly put large summary into article. The particular summary in questioned had been archived because the article was over 130 kb. CheeseDreams reverted the archiving of the summary. This went on and on. [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] ... there are more, I am just getting tired of looking for each example. Surely, you get the idea!
    • There was discussion about the summaries [92]; everyone except CheeseDreams felt that the summaries at best wasted space, and at worst disrupted the process of improving the article. There are three problems with the summaries.
      • First the "summary" is a way for CheeseDreams to put my words, and the words of others in dispute with CheeseDreams, into different words. This allows CheeseDreams to control the representation of the discussion and the participants of this discussion. She often uses this control to editorialize about the discussion, to misrepresent people she disagrees with, and or slander other editors.
Example: Part of the discussion involved how best to translate words and names. FT2 mistakenly claimed that "John" is English for the Hebrew name Yonatan. I objected to this error, and explained that "Yohanan" is the Hebrew version of the name "John." FT2 wrote, "I like this: "Yohanan" is not Hebrew for Jonathan; the Baptist's name was "John" (or it's Hebrew equivalent, Yohanan). Does anyone else spot the illogic?" I tried to explain again what FT2's error was (and it really is a big error in that it reveals tremendous ignorance about the Bible and Jewish culture, i.e. the general topic of the article). When FT2 wrote "Remember Davids friend "Jonathan"? David and Jonathan? Universally called "Jonathan" not John? Yohannan? Check it out. "John" is not hebrew......" (21:45, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)), I lost patience at his combination of ignorance and sarcasm.
My response to FT2, as I wrote it (04:23, 23 Nov 2004; see [93]):
What on earth are you saying? There are two Hebrew names: Jonatan and Yohana. Yonatan is represented in English as Jonathan. Yohanan is represented in English as John. Are you making fun of me? Ar eyou yanking my chain? Waht does "Jonathan" have to do with "Yohanan? John the Baptist was not names Jonathan -- Jon is not John. Jesus, are you seriously trying to argue this? Do you know anything? I am seriously starting to question your competence here and I really am serious, not trying to be rude, because I know you have made some reasonable edits to other articles. But what you are saying here is a charicature of a nut, you must be making fun of me somehow ... Slrubenstein
CheeseDream's "summary" (see [94]):
Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John" (4). Slrubenstein states that FT2 is a nut, and questions whether FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein (5).
I find the remark about masturbating offensive; I said so (see for example [95]) and deleted it. Another editor explained to CheeseDreams that it is an erroneous paraphrase (see [96]). That CheeseDreams persists in restoring or creating new summaries to repeat it (see [97]) is a sign of willful spite. CheeseDreams often editorializes in her summaries; this summary was really just a vehicle for her insulting me.
      • Second, the main way that CheesDreams summarizes is by cutting any explanation, reasoning, or evidence -- in other words, material that could constructively go into the article. What is left in these "summaries" is only the worst part of any discussion -- a list of editors who have taken opposing positions, and a record of conflict. The best part of the discussion -- a process by which people come to clarify their understanding of the topic, or in the course of dicsussion bring to light more facts or explanations -- is gone. This is certainly unhelpful. The second sentence of the summary is a good example -- it makes no sense and is a useless summary.
      • Third, the summaries themselves waste too much space (note in the example above, the summary is almost as long as what is summarized!) Each summary is itself over 30 kb. long -- long enough to be archived -- and should be archived.

I want to be clear that my objection is not merely to the many times that CheeseDreams has inserted the summary into the talk page -- a series of acts that wastes space on the page and the time of oother editors. The summary is symptomatic of more general and profound problems with CheeseDreams -- it reveals her intent on hijacking a page; her complete disregard for the views of other editors and their reasoning; her bias in reporting what others have said; her malice, as she seeks every opportunity to slander other editors through editorializing (e.g. when she explains, in the text itself, or in the edit summary, that the reason she is summarizing is that other contributors are verbose and obscure) or misrepresenting others (e.g. claiming that I have questioned whether FT2 is masturbating me). It is this general pattern of destructive behavior that is the real issue, not the fact that she reverted the archiving of the summary x number of times.

3 December

[edit]

My second main complaint against CheeseDreams is that she refuses to verify her work. I have done considerable research on the topic and believe her claims to be false. When I offer her an opportunity to verify her claims, she mires me in a miasma of meaningless dialogue. This exchange provides a good example: [98].

28 November

[edit]

Another example where CheeseDreams refuses to verify claims, this time from the Koan discussion on the Jesus page: [99]. I admit the header reflects my irritation; be that as it may, there was an endless discussion about whether Jesus used Koans (CheeseDreams being the only advocate of this view) and I pointed out simply that if some scholar has made this claim we should include it -- if not, we needn't argue it. CheeseDreams has continued to revert any deletion of this material from the article, and her only contribution to the talk page continues to be defensive or offensive -- but she still hasn't provided any verification at all to support this highly contested claim.

22 November

[edit]

My third main complaint is that she rejects all of my work. By late November there were two versions of the article -- one that I had crafted, and one that FT2 had crafted. See my complaint for the general context and sources. I had explained in the talk pages that there were many mistakes in fact in FT2's version, and that it was poorly organized, and explained that my version was better organized and fully verifiable.

  • 15:43, 22 Nov 2004
    • Reverted my work; explanation was that I am arrogant and POV. [100]

Here is a more recent example (I put it here because it makes the same point as the Nov. 22 example):

  • 21:07, 17 Dec 2004
    • Provides an explanation of why she prefers FT2's version over mine. Her explanation reveals that she has not read my version at all, or if she has she read it in a careless fashion and that she is ignorant of the topic. From this example I conclude that she reflexively argues against anything I say even if it means she has to misconstrue what I wrote, or make up facts without any evidence. [101] (Note: in many cases in this excerpt, I simply identify claims she makes as ignorant or wrong. If any arbitrator likes, I would be happy to explain in detail what is ignorant and why she is wrong, and provide verification.)

It is true that I have rejected most of CheeseDreams' work. But every time, I have provided substantive reasons. In most cases I believe that CheeseDreams' additions are either not based on any research at all, or based on a distorted understanding of the scholarship. I have always made my objections clear and have asked CheeseDreams to provide verification.

20 November

[edit]
  • 00:19, 20 Nov 2004
  • 00:00, 20 Nov 2004

19 November

[edit]
  • 20:04, 19 Nov 2004

6-7 November

[edit]

These exchanges provide good examples of my difficulty discussing changes constructively with CheeseDreams. Whenever I raise a verifiable problem of fact or interpretation, CheeseDreams effectively dismissed any contribution I could make: [105] [106]

1-3 November

[edit]

There is only one discussion I recall in which CheeseDreams claimed to verify her position. It was on the Jesus talk page: [107]. Here we perhaps get to the root of my conflict with CheeseDreams. In this example she does provide sources -- but in a way that makes me even more skeptical of her research. I say this because none of the people she cited were important contemporary scholars; because several of the people she cited were not scholars on Jesus, critical Bible studies, or history of 1st century Judea; and because in at least one case she was entirely wrong (she provides Albert Schweitzer as an example of a scholar who claims that Jesus never existed, when in fact Schweitzer most definitely believed Jesus existed). Moreover, I provided sources to verify my claim, that scholars (meaning, critical scholars -- PhD.s who have academic appointments and publish in academic journals) believe that Jesus did exist (Crossan, Vermes, Bartman, Fredriksen, Sanders, Meier). CheeseDreams not only utterly disregarded my claim and evidence -- she seemed utterly unaware of these scholars. It is very hard to believe that anyone could do anything close to serious research on 1st Century Jewish history, early Christian history, or critical Bible studies, and not be familiar with at least a few of these names. The problem is, you have to know something about these issues to be sure that I am right and she is wrong. All one has to do is go to a few websites to see that A. Schweitzer really did believe in Jesus. A little work on the web would provide you with the c.v.s of most of the people I cited, or reviews of their books. One problem with earlier attempts to resolve my conflict with CheeseDreams is that others, like FT2 and Amgine, didn't know and didn't do much research on this period. What concerns me even more is that when CheeseDreams and I came into conflict on the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article, they did not insist that CheeseDreams provide sources for her claims. Indeed, Amgine felt that my demanding verification was a sign of bad faith on my part [108].

To be blunt, I think many people have been fooled by CheeseDreams. She makes her points so firmly, and sticks to them, and in some cases provides the names of authorities, and others assume she is correct. These people are acting "in good faith" and were I ignorant of critical Bible research and 1st century history, I too would have assumed CheeseDreams was acting "in good faith." But I have done considerable research on these matters and all of my research gives me reason only to question CheeseDreams' research.

Final Note: the Nature of my Complaint

[edit]

I have requested arbitration not because CheeseDreams has violated specific wikipedia policies -- she may have, but my complaint is more complex. She has accused me of pretty much everything I have accused her of. Moreover, much of the evidence can be interpreted either way. For example, below Amgine provides evidence of my abusing CheeseDreams. In fact, I am proud of almost every example Amgine provides -- I believe that they show a pattern in which I contribute well-researched, verifiable material to an article; in which I provide explanations for my changes; and in which I demand that CheeseDreams do the same. This is not merely a situation where the process has broken down. If it were, then perhaps RfC and mediation would have worked. This is a case where two different people have different notions of what "NPOV" and "verifiable" mean. CheeseDreams (and Amgine) and I fundamentally differ on matters of content, and in many cases I believe the conflict between us can be understood only by looking at the content and the reasons we give, respectively, for the changes we make. Slrubenstein

Evidence presented by User:Amgine

[edit]

Evidence of harrassment, abuse in Cultural and historical background of Jesus

[edit]

CheeseDreams was targeted for abuse and harrassment, at times appearing to be consciously goading the user to lash back.

Uncivil and rude comments:

  1. 22:29, 2 Nov 2004 - Ordered not to change "facts" - Slrubenstein
  2. 22:35, 2 Nov 2004 - "... not based on critical historical scholarship" - Slrubenstein
  3. 23:06, 2 Nov 2004 - "This is a superior -- more precise, more accurate -- version." - summary on revert - Slrubenstein
  4. 23:09, 2 Nov 2004
    • "which part of "see talk" don't you understand?" - summary on revert - Slrubenstein
  5. 23:12, 2 Nov 2004 - "perhaps he has something to contribute, but it should not be done by reverting what I added. - Slrubenstein (Note: Slrubenstein had deleted/reverted CheeseDreams in his first and subsequent edits to this article 3 hours earlier)
  6. 02:17, 3 Nov 2004 - a chastisement by Jayjg against "forcing" edits on a "stable" article (ignoring CheeseDreams previous amicable discussions and negotiations with other contributors on the Talk page, and that the article was far from stable.)
  7. 17:37, 3 Nov 2004 - "You must live in a dark wolrd[sic] indeed..." - Slrubenstein
  8. 23:02, 3 Nov 2004 - "you really, really miss the point" - Slrubenstein
  9. 22:12, 4 Nov 2004 - "lousy scholarship" - Slrubenstein
  10. 22:28, 4 Nov 2004 - "one of the stupidest things I have ever heard" "they are both moronic" - Slrubenstein
  11. 17:07, 5 Nov 2004 - A barrage of polite insults, responding to the polite insults which were return fire for the above - Slrubenstein
  12. 22:02, 5 Nov 2004 - "Thoughts on article - no, CheeseDream" - Slrubenstein
  13. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3ACultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus&diff=7137660&oldid=7137615 22:06, 5 Nov 2004[ - "Don't hijack it." - Slrubenstein
  15. 00:58, 25 Nov 2004 - "Stop screaming." "Give up the delusion" - Slrubenstein
  16. 01:37, 25 Nov 2004 "mistaken and ignorant" - Slrubenstein
  17. 01:48, 25 Nov 2004 - "incapable of intelligent contributions or discussion." - Slrubenstein
  18. 19:17, 25 Nov 2004 - "actually need[s] mentoring on how to work in Wikipedia" - Slrubenstein
  19. 17:46, 26 Nov 2004 - "another cheesedoodle" - Slrubenstein
  20. 17:49, 26 Nov 2004 - "more cheesedoodles" - Slrubenstein

Evidence of silencing in Cultural and historical background of Jesus

[edit]

Evidence of revert/delete of CheeseDreams' edits as harrassment in Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus

  1. 19:25, 1 Nov 2004
    • Refactor and delete CD edits - Slrubenstein
  2. 20:42, 2 Nov 2004
    • Delete paragraph about Messiah - Slrubenstein
  3. 21:42, 2 Nov 2004
    • Substituted/removed opening, paragraph about Messiah - Slrubenstein
  4. 22:28, 2 Nov 2004
    • "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Slrubenstein" - Slrubenstein
      This revert began a war of 5 reverts by each party within a 4 hour period: [109] (note additional text/edits), [110], [111] (note additional text/edits), [112], [113], [114], [115], [116] (After this revert Slrubenstein posted to Jayjg and Jwrosenzweig requesting intervention), [117]. The last edit summary by CheeseDreams "Which part of NPOV do you not understand. See talk. N.b. you (and now I) have reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours which is heavily frowned upon." The next edits to the page are Jayjg's revert to Slrubenstein and protecting it. (Mirv later reverted it to before the revert war.)

Evidence presented by Rhobite

[edit]

14 December

[edit]

Evidence presented by Ta bu shi da yu

[edit]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Article fork

[edit]
  • 05:58, 1 Dec 2004
  • 06:08, 1 Dec 2004
  • 07:40, 1 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams reverts, calls the redirection "vandalism". [127]
  • 10:36, 1 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams adds an extremely misleading comment to the article "I did not write this page. It was written by Slrubenstein. The circumstances surrounding its seperation from Cultural and historical background of Jesus are discussed there", edit history is the same. This is not born out by the edit history. [128]
  • 18:56, 1 Dec 2004'
    • CheeseDreams reverts, calls previous edit "vandalism" [129]
  • 04:51, 2 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams reverts, calls previous edit "vandalism" [130]
  • 10:01, 2 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams reverts, calls it "vandalism" [131]
  • 10:36, 1 Dec 2004
    • A2Kafir reverts to the redirect [132]. Edit summary is "Return to redirect. Why should Wikipedia have two articles on one topic?"
  • 10:20, 2 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams reverts again, calls the previous edit "vandalism". Edit summary is "r.v. vandalism. See explanation on talk page. This is 2 articles on 2 different topics. The other article has a completely different version in the frozen edit war,which more accurately reflects title" [133]
  • 10:26, 2 Dec 2004
    • John Kenney reverts [134]
  • 10:31, 2 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams reverts previous edit, calls that edit "vandalism" [135]
  • 18:08, 2 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDream reverts previous edit, calls that edit "vandalism" [136]
  • 05:26, 3 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDream reverts previous edit, calls that edit "POV vandalism" [137]
  • 05:54, 3 Dec 2004
    • Slrubenstein reverts to the redirect. This is the third user to do this. Something tells me there's a reason for this. [138]
  • 07:38, 5 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDream reverts. This time the edit summary is "If you want rid of this page put a VfD on it rather than a redirect". So much for it being a temporary editing page (which incidently should have been made a subpage, not a new page... but anyway) [139]
  • 09:04, 5 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams reverts, edit summary is "r.v. POV deletionist vandalism" [140]
  • Note: this edit war finally was resolved when Slrubenstein protected it. The whole situation is absurd, and the page should never have been created in the first place! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Causing problems in Historicity of Jesus

[edit]
  • 22:55, 30 Oct 2004
    • A few things from [141]
      • "It is inconceivable that no-one in the state of Palestine, located very close to the geographic centre of these religions, had ever come into contact with one of these." original research
      • "Other features which supporters of the Jesus as myth argument point to include:" weasel word (which supporters of the Jesus as myth is she referring to?)
  • 14:32, 6 Nov 2004
    • Basically, made a major change then left it. "Remove inusefor tag. Haven't finished, but really tired now. Will sort out the mess tomorrow" [142]
  • 05:40, 8 Nov 2004
    • Added an entire section that is not directly related to the article. POV pushing. [143]
  • 0:40, 8 Nov 2004'
    • Edit summary says "SAM, do not remove the "I haven't finished making a major change to this article but will do so by next week", it is distorting. AND until you put why on the talk page, I am removing the dispute notice" [144] CheeseDreams expected us to not do any editing and to have an article in a total mess for over a week. This shows unilateral editing, and a reluctance to allow others to come to consensus on the direction of the article.

User page statements

[edit]
  • 07:09, 19 Nov 2004
    • Cheesedreams added the following: "I edit controversial articles. They are usually more controversial after I start editing them." [145] It appears that she enjoys just being controversial. I put to you that she is deliberately POV pushing. Controversial articles don't need to become more controversial, they need to become more NPOV!
  • 07:09, 19 Nov 2004
    • To a section called "Public service announcements" she added the following: "I have a more detailed list if you would like it." [146] I put to you that she is unnecessarily willing to cause problems by directly categorising people and making them feel attacked.

Vandalism of Ta bu shi da yu user page

[edit]

Evidence presented by Cool Hand Luke

[edit]

Apparent abuse of RfC

[edit]

Nov 23

[edit]
  • 22:06, 23 Nov 2004
    • Cheese Dreams starts first RfC against User:Theresa knott over allegedly protecting the wrong version of an article [148], see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa_knott. Theresa had not been involved in that dispute, and appears to have acted properly. CheeseDreams never even attempted to contact her beforehand [149]. This could be understood as a beginners mistake, and comentators on the RfC advised that two parties must certify failure to resolve disputes on RfCs. [150] [151].RfC was deleted 07:10, 26 Nov 2004 (since restored).

Nov 28

[edit]
  • 01:29, 28 Nov 2004
    • CheeseDreams starts another RfC against User:Eequor [152], see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eequor. As with Theresa, CheeseDreams did not inform user of the dispute, which pertained to a batch of one-time edits Eequor made. I believe Eequor was actually totally unaware of the RfC—it was never on her talk page. I opined that RfCs must only be filed after a failure to resolve dispute by two users, and that no attempt to even contact Eequor had been made [153]. I know CheeseDreams saw this comment, because she replied to it [154]. This RfC was deleted 06:23, 30 Nov 2004 (since restored).

Dec 2

[edit]
  • 21:33, 2 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams launched RfC against User:Slrubenstein for protecting a page he was involved in an edit war with [155], see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein. Although this claim had a bit more merit, it was also uncertified with no evidence that CheeseDreams tried to resolve the conflict beforehand. Theresa Knott threatened to delete it as such [156]. Theresa also request evidence on CheeseDreams' talk page [157]. Ironically, CheeseDreams wanted the page retained for at least 48 hours.

Dec 3

[edit]
  • 00:38, 3 Dec 2004
    • RFC against User:Jwrosenzweig for a supposed Ad Hominem attack he made just minutes prior to CheeseDreams' creation of the RfC [158]. I agian expressed doubt CheeseDreams had tried to resolve the matter [159], and 16 editors signed Jwrosenzweig's statement indicating the RfC was frivolous see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig. Theresa also threatened to delete this uncertified RfC [160], but Sam Spade convinced her they all ought to be kept as evidence. Netoholic applied a notice closing the RfC 07:51, 5 Dec 2004 as per discussion on its talk page [161]. This notice is now on all five of CheeseDream's RfCs. See section below for more about this RfC.

Apparant attacks on arbitrators

[edit]

Dec 3

[edit]
  • 00:03, 3 Dec 2004
    • User felt that Jwrosenzweig made an Ad hominem attack in this dif [163] (this is from the RfC against Slrubenstein above). I see no attack there, but Cheese Dreams' responses to it seem somewhat discourteous. "I do not expect this pathetic behaviour from an Admin and especially not from a member of the arbitration committee. I consider Ad Hominem attacks by a member of the arbitration committee a resigning matter." [164] "Either retract it (by striking through/deleting the comment), or I will make an RfC for Ad Hominem by an arbitration committee member." (CheeseDreams followed through on this threat, again revealing an apparent abuse of RfC—see above.) [165] A second demand for retraction RfC against Jwrosenzweig occured five minutes later. CheeseDreams apparently believed Jwrosenzweig correcting her misunderstanding of the 3RR was a personal attack—irrelevent to the issue even though she was making the accusation that Slrubenstein violated the rule. She also claimed that the policy must have been changed by a POV warrior because she rememberes it refering to versions. In fact, she claimed this when she was informed on her talk page three days earlier that she was mistaken about how the 3RR works. [166] I asked her when this change occured, [167] but I've never found it.

Dec 18

[edit]
  • 00:56, 18 Dec 2004
    • CheeseDreams created Wikipedia:Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality, which was deleted by User:Mackensen at 01:58, 18 Dec 2004 as an "Ad hominem attack on Fred Bauder". CheeseDreams advertized this poll several places, notably WP:AN [168], and spammed nine talk pages including: [169], [170], [171], [172], [173] We can surmise that the poll was a reference to User:Fred Bauder by the truncated title "FrBa" and more clearly by the description of one of the talk page spam messages [174]. Curiously, none of these spam messages were signed. Contents of the deleted page were:
If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.
Resigning matter
1. Arbitrators must be whiter than white. CheeseDreams 00:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Acceptable practice

Evidence presented by CheeseDreams

[edit]

AGAINST Rhobite's evidence

[edit]

The following occurred

I consider tag-team reversion wars to be wholly unfair and inappropriate I do not consider application of 3RR against me valid, The tag-team had made 5 reverts before I had even made 4.

Also, please see WP:AN on the validity of the non-reverted version

CheeseDreams 18:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pedant's suggestion to arbitrators

[edit]

CheeseDreams behavior can be fairly quickly understood by looking through the user's contributions list, which I offer as evidence. A substantial portion of the user's edits were spent in obstructive, or uncivil comments on talk pages and that the user provides very little in terms of adding lasting content to articles but rather behaves in an aggresive, petulant, mocking and bullying manner towards the user's colleagues. This has not only been a chronic problem from the beginning, it got much worse, and the community was forced to respond. Pedant 00:32, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I don't understand. You think the community was "forced" to bite a newbie, call him/her a troll and a vandal, revert his/her edits without discussion, tell him/her his/her scholarship is "inferior", round up a gang of previously uninvolved parties and harass him/her? Could you expand on how CheeseDreams forced them?Dr Zen 02:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In defense of the community, the first "bites" on the newbie occured long after her modus operandi was established. I don't have time at the moment to dig back that far in the histories, since Wikipedia is kind of sluggish at the moment, but as I recall, CheeseDreams and The Rev of Bru showed up very close to the same moment, starting with the same sort of edits. However, at that point I was able to work with them both. Something happened between then and now, and I don't know who is to blame, that but CheeseDreams on her crusade. The "bites" occured after the revert warring that started after this. Mpolo 15:12, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion CheeseDreams may very well actually be a troll. What I mean by the community being forced to respond is not that CheeseDreams forced the community, but that there was no way for the community to respond in any 'assume good faith' way to CheeseDreams and that it was necessary to alert the community to the problem that CheeseDreams has made of itself. To speak purely for myself, my first interaction with CheeseDreams was when the user asked me to look at the situation at Cultural and historical background of Jesus, when CheeseDreams and SLRubenstein had a disagreement which was being polled for opinions, my opinion was that both of the two were somewhat right and in some ways wrong. At that point I suggested that CheeseDreams and SLRubenstein team up together and collaborate on the article, as I had the impression they were very near agreement and were devoted to creating a good article. At that point the article was neutral and factual for the most part, and was gently being massaged into final form with minor edits -- each of which was discussed on the talk page, and the talk page was quite manageable in size and easy to read. CheeseDreams, in my opinion, did everything possible to create a permanent controversy on any article related to Christianity, Jesus, and the history surrounding the story of Jesus... and then refactored talk, summarised/archived with blithe disregard for accuracy, and with an apprently deliberate intent to obscure the history of the argument. To see what REALLY happened, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of CheeseDreams contributions list and start reading there, I don't need to go back and read that, however, I have read almost everything CheeseDreams has written up until edit no. 1000, while it was happening. I formed the opinion that this user is an actual troll a long time before anyone was calling CheeseDreams a troll.. Nobody called CheeseDreams a troll before CheeseDreams behaved as a troll. People held on to courteous behaviour toward CheeseDreams until CheeseDreams' behaviour became quite impossible to tolerate with any civility. People reverted CheeseDreams without discussion after it became obvious that CheeseDreams lacked good faith. I never reverted CheeseDreams, my policy with trolls is to stop feeding their need for attention. As for CheeseDreams "scholarship being inferior", I would not characterise it as scholarship, but research, and I would not call it inferior, but rather "well-chosen, with the intent to further fuel dispute". As for rounding up a gang of previously uninvolved parties, as I point out, I myself was 'rounded up' by CheeseDreams... I'm not sure who you mean by uninvolved parties, or what you mean by uninvolved or what they were allegedly not involved in. At any rate, I think that CheeseDreams is guilty of harassment before anyone else. "Don't bite the newbie" only goes so far and as far as I'm concerned, once you are well-acquainted enough with the customs and processes of the Wikipedia community to abuse those processes and drastically flout those customs, your 'newbie credentials' are no longer valid. A user with over 2000 edits in their first month, most of them on talk pages, most of those inflammatory is in no way a newbie. I could greatly expand on the CheeseDreams problem, but that is exactly what trolls want: to expand the discussion about the discussion, and to stop the community dead in its tracks. It would be quite sufficient for anyone who wants to know, for them to read CheeseDreams contributions list. Plenty enough of the evidence is right there. However, for evidence of aggressive refactoring and inappropriate summarization, see:
Archive 5 -- CheeseDreams 21:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
which CheeseDreams characterises as
"increasingly verbose discussion of outstanding issues"
but which contains the bulk of SLRubenstein's comments on the article, but by summarising them as 'increasingly verbose' it discourages the reader. It appears to me as if the discussion was too deep for CheeseDreams to wade into at this point and so CheeseDreams swept it under the rug.
I am frankly surprised that a horde of other trolls has not also shown up to increase the muddle, usually at this time in a troll attack, that is what typically happens. This is for me the strongest evidence that CheeseDreams is not a methodical and committed troll, may not in fact be a troll at all regardless of evidence, and that this situation might be resolvable. CheeseDreams may very well become a good contributer, and valued member of the community, if that is the choice CheeseDreams wants to make, and if CheeseDreams abandons her other account(s) and sticks to contributing value, from one account, rather than obstructing progress, in furtherance of CheeseDreams own religious beliefs. Pedant 16:30, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
I probably should add that, though I have been very open with CheeseDreams about what I consider to be bad behavior on her part, CheeseDreams has been for the most part civil to me. Pedant
You know, when I read "X is a troll", I stop having any respect for the finger-pointer. It just muddies the water. I do not agree that people were particularly courteous to CheeseDreams. I think they pretty much set about him/her from the outset. I find that often POV pushers will hide behind the policies of Wikipedia, posting curt commands: "don't make personal attacks", etc. To a newcomer, this does not come across as courtesy or civility but as aggression practised by someone who knows the game. So, our views of how it went differ.Dr Zen 06:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dr Zen, as you yourself commented to CheeseDreams on her user page "If either of you was the least bit interested in "mediation" that particular dispute would have been settled a long time ago. " The point is that CheeseDreams is NOT interested in resolving this at all. I direct you to this friendly and courteous thread, very early in CheeseDreams 'careen': this is from CheeseDreams talk page archive of November
Explain this edit in a way that makes it possible to assume good faith:
this was a wholesale rewrite of an entire article, yet the edit history states that it was an added link
since you are making comments in my comment section, and regardless of your statement that you have no repect for me, perhaps you would care to point me to any specific instance where I made any comments that were discourteous to CheeseDreams... or to any other user? Otherwise I would appreciate you not making irrelevant comments in this section, and please confine your comments to some other place unless they are a response to some comment I made. (I never said "people were particularly courteous to CheeseDreams" so you disagreeing with me in that way makes it seem as if that was my statement. Since I did not make that statement, it is not relevant in this section.) In this section my main point is that to understand CheeseDreams behaviour it is only necessary to read her contributions list. This was originally a one paragraph suggestion, to which you added an irrelevant comment. I never intended to add this much text to this section, as this creates more work for the arbitrators... not my intent. Pedant 19:08, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Dante Alighieri

[edit]

I also brought to CD's attention that adding all those tags sans explanation could easily be considered a provocative or vandalizing act. I was able to come to a very amicable conclusion as far as I'm concerned. Cheese Dreams acted rationally and respectfully to me. I think the key here may be that I did not assume that CD was being intentionally provocative as some of the other parties did. This is offered as evidence of someone who tried to resolve the dispute and SUCCEEDED. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:39, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

And yet, the tags remained. - Ta bu shi da yu 18:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, as CD explained in edit summaries and talk pages what the motivation was. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:41, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)


Evidence presented by FT2

[edit]

Having presented what I believe to be a fair overview RFAr/CheeseDreams#Comment by FT2, I had no evidence to present, nor a wish to present any. This just changed. I should like to present evidence in resepct of either unpleasantness or provocation (depending how you classify it), and the observation this is not entirely an isolated incident, in mitigation of the things CheeseDreams may have done. Also the observation that whatever else may be the case, this post at least tends to support the view of those who say CheeseDreams was, in part at least and at times, responding to provocation.

  • Dr Zen: And you wonder why CheeseDreams describes you as a cabal of "fundamentalists"? You slap each other on the backs, all agreeing that your POV is the best thing to use in the article, and that to put any other in would set up "a straw man argument". [175]
  • SIRubenstein: Forget her bias, forget her illogic, forget her inability to take criticism or to learn from others -- forget all these things and one truth remains: she is ignorant of this subject and has nothing to offer here. Slrubenstein 18:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) [176]
  • Dr Zen: I look forward to the day this unpleasant editor receives his due punishment for this pisspoor attitude. Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) [177]


(To clarify, my objection is not to the statements as to CheeseDream's knowledge. It is to the final words, that she is ignorant "and has nothing to offer here". The latter seems inappropriately dismissive and symptomatic of the whole debate. CheeseDreams has ofered at times quite valid input. She is clearly not an academic scholar and sometimes makes statements which SIrubenstein finds flawed or mistaken. But SIrubenstein has felt at times that is true of others whose input is dismissed for this reason.

Wikipedia needs and benefits from other kinds of people than academic scholars, both to review material, highlight issues, and form consensus, and because it shows how readers may view it. Sometimes an editor who lacks full information but points out concerns and other matters, or opens up questions for consideration, is just as important as those who have informational answers. It would be good if they would listen and be listened to. Both of these are necessary to avoid conflict, not just one)

I've placed my response on the talk page, Slrubenstein
Well, it doesn't explain why she's been attacking me. I've been quite forthright in my criticism of her input but don't think she should stop. I merely want her to write from a neutral point of view. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence by User:IZAK Jan 6, `05

[edit]

CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams creates TWO new anti-Bible templates violating injunction!

[edit]

See: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:BPOV and Template:BPOVbecause

[178]

Unfortunately, CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has exhibited a strong antipathy and hostile POV attitude when dealing with topics relating to Christianity and Judaism, see the INJUNCTION against him at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision#Editing ban of CheeseDreams : "Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history [181] of Historicity_of_Jesus." He may face a total ban, but in the meantime he is causing trouble with this new nonsense template.IZAK 15:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • To Christianity, the Hebrew Bible and its contents are considered to be the Old Testament of Christianity, therefore by interfering and editing articles relating to the Old Testament, User CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams has VIOLATED the injunction against him that states:"Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity..." He should be fully penalized for his devious actions. Thank you. IZAK 15:09, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by AllyUnion

[edit]

On the interest of aiding a fellow Wikipedian on IRC, a complaint came to my attention about this users' lack of research and enforcing a specific view on Jesus (disambiguation) article where this user was attempting to claim that Jesus ben Nun was the same as Joshua ben Nun. No evidence was presented supporting this claim, and several users were making edits and reverting due the fact that the claims had no factual background.

I took the liberty of trying an intervention, showing evidence of my research on this user's talk page here: [182] And invited CheeseDreams to present me the evidence that support the supposed claim.

This user's reply on my talk page makes no attempt on such: [183] I was not convinced of any evidence at all (backing the claims that this person was making), and User:CheeseDreams held that his/her facts were correct even though no evidence was presented.

The Committee might be interested to view the talk page where this user was attempting to dispute the matter: Talk:Jesus (disambiguation). Clear evidence regarding aggressive behavior and not following Wikiquette can also be found on that talk page. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence&oldid=431099213"