Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:HistoryBuffEr|HistoryBuffEr]]

message: :::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)
replies: text: --Alterego 22:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be more accurate to state that I was implying someone was acting like a Nazi. CheeseDreams 22:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by --[[User:Alterego|Alterego]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:Amgine]]'s comment 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]]

message: 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  [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)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:FT2|FT2]]

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

message: CheeseDreams has four responses to my complaint
#Asking for bans is a serious violation of Wikipedia:Civility
#Slrubenstein is serially uncivil to editors who disagree with him (see evidence presented by Amgine for a small selection of this)
#Slrubenstein trys to pack the house to win votes
#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:
#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
#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. .
#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.
#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)
thread_title:  Slrubenstein Rebuts CheesDreams' Response 

message: Slrubenstein has responses to my rebuttal
#Asking to ban someone may be a violation of civility.  
::I agree. I don't think hypocrisy should be tolerated, does anyone else?
#CheeseDreams is flat out wrong about information
::Isn't that POV, and, according to Arrogance, fits certain definitions quite accurately.
#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?
#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
#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
#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
#Slrubenstein should not be blocked because he has done considerable research on the topic and made well-informed, verifiable NPOV contributions
::Totally disputed
#CheeseDreams refuses to work with others
::I work quite happily with Wesley, Amgine, FT2, Mpolo, Rednblu, Ungtss, amongst others
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ChessDreams Rebuts Shrubblesten's Response to CheesDreams 

message: 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)
thread_title: Modest proposal on RfCs

message: I really must ask what's happening to that temporary injunction! See  to see what she did. She added  tags and . I have been forced to list her on vandalism in progress. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CheeseDreams has allegedly ''vandalised'' my user page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clarification