Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision

message: Let's get this over and done with. How long? 30 days or 90 days? So much for my work on Australian articles and computing articles, and my attempts at fixing up Historicity of Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the Proposed decision page, you might note that 3 Arbitrators have already voted against banning you, so it doesn't look like it will happen at this point. Jayjg 00:18, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. It looks like I'm wrong (again). I must be having a bad day. I think it's time for me to logout. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: My ban

message: Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision#Frivilous Requests for Comment, a proposal is made that "Cheeseofdreams[sic] is prohibited from filing any RFCs in the future."
Yes, he has filed frivolous RFCs.  Yes, they failed.  Prohibiting him from filing an RFC indefinitely though doesn't really provide him due process.  He should be free to file RFC's, and watch them die like the rest.  What I fear is that he has a legitimate complaint (such as an admin's behaviour after the remedies are instituted), and we don't give him access to the one forum with which to seek redress.
Please consider something else which will get the point across. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
:Thank you for raising this. I'd been pondering whether I'd support this myself, but I think you're right - an alternate solution would be better. I'll try and come up with something by Thursday. Ambi 22:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frivolous Requests for Comment 

message: Thus far there continues to be zero mention of the edit warring, personal attacks, 3rr violations, admin abuse issues of those who have opposed CheeseDreams by the arb com. I am quite disappointed. - Amgine 21:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding such evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence would be appropriate, if you can gather it.  Make a new section and present it. Ah, checking now, I see you have.  Maybe you can mention more directly which users you'd like to see action against, and what you'd suggest. -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
Clearly, given the evidence is all about him, SLRubenstein. CheeseDreams has been given a week off for suggesting the editor who wrote this: "I am getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of seeing you try to insert this Koan crap with misleading edit reasons. YOU CANNOT REWRITE HISTORY." was acting like a "Nazi". Okay, it was a bit silly, but if that's a personal attack, SLR has very much indulged himself in the same and should receive the same punishment. Given his incivility, bad editing practice and attitude, which he does not only show to CD, he should share any punishment she gets for the christianity articles. Because I believe that the punishment given to CD is extremely unfair, I think he should get what's fair. A year's personal attack parole and revert parole (in the form of no unexplained edits and only one "revert" of any kind a day).Dr Zen 01:15, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zen misses a crucial point: I have been adding verifiable useful content to the article, while CD has been only obstructionist.  I stand by my editing practices and attitude.  You do not like it that I question unverifiable material, or that I tell another editor that she is "wrong" when in fact she is wrong.  Sorry, that is not incivility, it is a necessary part of editing an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein 19:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting into it with you. Amgine's presented the evidence. Whether CD's stuff is "useful" does seem to depend a lot on your POV though. And if you set a standard for "verification" and then deny that everyone else meets it, "verified" means nothing at all. Dr Zen 01:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of issues with the opposition. 

message: Two points. One, these seem particularly harsh. Why can't the Arbitrators do something like they've done with Wik, Shorne and VeryVerily and allow CheeseDreams to continue editing all articles but with a restriction of one revert per day and a requirement to discuss all disputed amendments on the talk page? Is CheeseDreams really worse than Wik? And do we not want to encourage CheeseDreams to make constructive edits rather than forcing her away?
Two, what is a "Jesus-related" article, and what is a "Christianity-related" article? OK, Jesus and Christianity are - as are the Gospels. But what about articles on the Cultural and Historical background of Jesus? To my mind these aren't Jesus-related. They are related to the time and culture of 1st century Judaea. But since the article on Cultural and historical background of Jesus is part of the complaint, is that what the Arbitrators mean? Also, there is already doubt as to whether articles on the Old Testament are Christianity-related. Certainly the Old Testament is in the Christian Bible. If the Arbitrators are to use these terms, they ought to give guidance on how they should be interpreted, jguk 18:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CD has had her ducking. Now she must burn. However, if she has been a very, very good witch for six months, she's allowed to return to whatever articles she is now banned from.Dr Zen 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: If a revert parole might work, would it not be better to have that, but with the understanding that she breaks that revert parole, a ban will ensue (say on the authority of only 3 arbitrators to speed things up)? jguk 21:03, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: Nonsense is in the eye of the beholder. Whether you're making progress depends on what you think you're making progress towards. It is ridiculously POV to call the article in question the "Cultural and historical background of Jesus". This implies Jesus actually existed and consequently had a background. It should be understood as the background for the Jesus story, and as such, CD is completely right that referring back from the Gospels, or treating the Gospels as reliable historical documents, is entirely wrong.Dr Zen 04:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, it is also someone's POV that the Bible is an unreliable historical document. Many others do not have that POV. How is the POV that the Bible is reliable any less fair than saying the Bible is unreliable? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disagreeing with you. I think both POVs should be given fair treatment. I do not support CD in everything (or even most things she does). I do tend to work against the prevailing bias but that doesn't mean I don't think that viewpoint that is prevailing needs to be removed. In general, I'm not for removing anything. I hope you haven't got the impression that I want your POV suppressed, because that's far from true. Dr Zen 06:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed bans on editing articles