Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams: Difference between revisions

Case Opened on December 10, 2004

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Complaint by User:Snowspinner against User:CheeseDreams. Additional complaints were filed by User:Cool Hand Luke and User:Slrubenstein and possibly others, see talk page.

Since the other arbitration request is utterly unclear on who's asking who for what, I'll make this simple. I request arbitration against User:CheeseDreams for total failure to edit with any Wikiquette, repeated POV warrioring, personal attacks, and generally making the Wikipedia a harder place to edit.

A great deal (Probably more than any sane person wants to read) of information is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams, but I'll throw some pertinant edit links here.

He is prone to inflammatory edit summaries such as [1]. He puts dispute tags on articles without discussion and without any effort to fix the problems, often doing so on articles he has never edited prior to dispute tagging, such as [2]. He has engaged in vandalism on talk pages as in [3] (He changes "tastes" to "testes." He engages in POV warrioring such as trying to move the page Cultural and historical background of Jesus to Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be, which implies that Jesus was not a real person - an inappropriate implication for an article title.

I specifically request a temporary injunction that will block CheeseDreams from edits to religion-related articles at the very least, if not from all articles until the conclusion of this case.

I believe mediation will prove fruitless in this case based on the discussion on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, specifically in the "Status of Mediation" section in which he declares a mediator biased basically for failing to totally agree with him, and withdraws from the mediation process. (This was not a formal mediation process, but it still does not bode well for mediation.) Furthermore, CheeseDreams is engaging in this behavior over far too many articles with far too many users to consolidate into a mediation case - to do so would only put out one or two fires when there's a lot more that needs to be kept under control. Snowspinner 04:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

To clarify, I am making a general request for arbitration against CheeseDreams for widespread and problematic editing and conduct. Since one of the reasons for rejection or abstention in the previous arbitration request regarding CheeseDreams was that the case was too confusingly laid out, I am specifically avoiding drenching the arbcom in evidence. I have moved all requests that were ammended to mine to User:Snowspinner/CheeseDreams where they can sit until they are adapted for Evidence, or where an arbitor can look at them if so inclined. However, I'd like to keep this case request simple and direct. Snowspinner 19:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Also consider CheeseDreams' wasteful and uncertified RfCs. User appears to submit RfCs before attempting to resolve problems with other Wikipedians directly.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott (deleted, uncertified)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eequor (likewise)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney

Cool Hand Luke 05:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I (Slrubenstein) would like to add a request for arbitration, specifically concerning two articles: Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and a set of articles entitled Jesus in a cultural and historical background and Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be.

Concerning the first article The first article was originally a section of Jesus [4]; when the Jesus article became too long it was made a daughter article. I am one of several editors who has worked on it. In late October or early November CheeseDreams began working on the article. I questioned many of her edits, which I believed were inaccurate or unverifiable; she began reverting my changes. During this period she often called for votes -- in my opinion, substituting votes for discussion (there is a clear pattern, when a vote supports her view she demands that the vote be considered established consensus; when the vote does not support her position she explains that votes do not determine the truth). By November 2 we were in a revert war. Many of the differences between our versions were stylistic, but some were substantive: CheeseDreams refered to the area as "Palestine" although at the time in question Romans and Jews refered to Judea and the Galilee separately; CheeseDreams insisted that there were many messianic groups, among them Mandeanists, but there is no evidence for this and when I asked CheeseDreams to verify her claims, she refused. Here are the two versions: [5]. On Nov, 3 the page was protected. On Nov. 18 it was unprotected, and a new editor, FT2, revised the article and attempted to incorporate as much material from the discussion as possible [6]. I felt that FT2's version was a good start given the previous conflicts on the talk page, but was poorly organized and included many claims that were inaccurate; moreover FT2's article had explicit gaps where FT2 did not know the appropriate information. Striving to keep as much material from FT2's version as possible, I revised the article: [7]. I spent the better part of the day Nov. 19th working on the article and made over 50 edits, using the edit summary for each one to explain what I was doing [8]. During this period CheeseDream periodically reverted all of my edits without any explanation. On Nov. 20th FT2 made a series of edits which I believe left the artice in even worse condition -- very poorly organized, and replete with factual inaccuracies. I posted a list of over a dozen problems with FT2's version on the talk page [9], went back to my last version, and spent the better part of the 22nd working on the article making substantial additions of verifiable and NPOV content, leading to this version [10]. At that point, CheeseDreams and Amgine took turns reverting my work -- with the effect of deleting much content I had added -- and without any explanation or justification. They did not respond to my list of problems with FT2s version, and did not post any specific criticisms of my version (Amgine did provide some explanations/examples of problems at one point). Here is John Kenney's analysis of the revert war: [11]. Fundamentally, FT2s version was replete with inaccurate and unverifiable information; I have done considerable research and added verifiable, accurate content which CheeseDreams and others kept reverting. Theresa Knott protected the article on Nov. 23. Since that time, I have continued to try to suggest substantive, verifiable, relevant changes to the article (e.g. [12] and [13]). CheeseDream simply rejects every edit I have made or proposed. CheeseDream never provides any substantive reason for rejecting my work (she simply doesn't like it), and CheeseDream refuses to justify her changes to me, or to provide evidence or sources. In short, FT2 and I simply disagree about organization (he prefers topical, I prefer chronological), but most other contributors prefer my organization. CheeseDream rejects any work I do and reverts it.

On November 14 I requested mediation in my conflict with CheeseDreams, Amgine, and FT2 [14]. Amgine and CheeseDream would nat accept anyone I nominated as mediator. They choose Llywrch. Llywrch attempted mediation, but Amgine and CheeseDream expressed dissatisfaction and then rejected him as mediator. By this time I was communicating more constructively with Amgine and FT2, but still could not communicate with CheeseDreams. I made a second request for mediation [15], but no one volunteered to be mediator, and CheeseDream (who had stated that she would not accept anyone I nominated) did not nominate anyone. Llywrch suggested we go to arbitration. CheeseDream has often suggested arbitration, as has John Kenny.

I would like CheeseDreams banned from the article. I can find no good contribution to the article by her -- she has never improved the clarity of the prose, and has never added verifiable content; she only disrupts mine and others' attempts to improve the article.

Concerning the talk page of the first article Wikipedia talk pages often get too long. Wikipedia policy is to archive material. We archived a good deal of the discussion. CheeseDreams summarized this discussion and placed it back into the article. This is bad for two reasons: first, her summary is biased; she rewrites what others said and condenses arguments to support her views. Second, her summaries are very long and defeat the purpose of archiving. I archived her summary. Over the past several days she continues to move archived material back into the article; I put it back in the archive; she puts it back in the article. This defeats the purpose of the archives, and makes the talk page excessively long (160 kilobytes long!).

Concerning the other two articles In the second article, CheeseDream simply copied the first (protected) article and gave it a new title, Jesus in cultural and historical background. Someone put in a redirect to the original page Cultural and historical background of Jesus. CheeseDream reverted that and eight other attempts to redirect it. When I redirected and protected the redirect, CheeseDream accused me of abusing my sysop powers. At the request of another editor I unprotected it. CheeseDream reverted it and instituted a complaint at RfC against me. See [16], and [17]. John K. redirected and protected the page, and CheeseDream created a new namespace (Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be) with the same old article content that is Cultural and historical background of Jesus. I redirected and protected the page. She claims that this creation of two or three separate namespaces for the same article content is in the spirit of compromise, and I believe that this is laughable on its face. Presumably, the compromise would be that the original article (Cultural and historical background of Jesus) would be reverted to the form she likes, leaving me to enjoy the form I like. There are three reasons why this is not a good-faith compromise. First, I know of no example in wikipedia where a conflict over an article was resolved by having two versions of the article. Our goal should be one verifiable NPOV article for one topic or issue, not several articles on the same topic, different only in representing the views of a different editor. This smacks in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for and is a bad precedent. Second, CheeseDreams' move is disingenuous because she added all sorts of tags (neutrality and accurcacy under dispute) to the second copy of the article. In other words, she simply wishes to continue the arguments she has had with me over the original article, at a second space. Third, the article she favors is still, in the mind of me and several other editors, deeply flawed and will continue to be questioned and worked on.

I do not know if this is a bannable offense -- it certainly is in my opinion trolling. I believe it requires some sort of strong disciplinary action. Slrubenstein

Please see the top of the talk page for extended comments by many users.

• Accept Fred Bauder 18:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. →Raul654 19:32, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. [[User:The Epopt|--the Epopt of the Cabal]] 21:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Recuse. Jwrosenzweig 21:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Accept. Delirium 23:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts are there as well)