I'm a little bit amazed at the sentence proposed for TBSDY. 30 days?!? We've handed out bans of that length to bad-faith users before, so handing them out in this case is a bit extreme.
I've looked at the alleged edit, and I can't see much malicious intent in it - what purpose would it serve? It could've even been a technical accident. It's not as if he's removing diffs or changing the intent of others comments.
A ban of 30 days for a technicality is likely to drive a lot of good-faith editors away, particularly in this case. If you're going to do this with a prolific and helpful editor who does a myriad of non-controversial work, it'd be nice if at least find some substantial evidence of wrongdoing could be found. Ambi 00:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The basic idea is that you should leave others' edits alone on an arbitration page. The Arbitrators will decide is something is in order or not. Removing a request for a temporary injunction is a serious offense. Just messing around with someone's signature (had it actually happened) would be bad but not as serious.
Fred Bauder 16:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
It's already been decided you'll hang, CD. Fred's just trying to influence what for. Dr Zen 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
I've just spent a good deal of time detailing why the last revert that CheeseDreams did on that page are totally POV, have plenty of weasel words, and are mostly unrelated content! See Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Disputed. So I notice with interest that there is a section that says:
Does this mean that CheeseDreams shouldn't be editing this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since this RfA is moving unusually rapidly to decision phases, and I've only thoroughly worked through November 6 in a single article (and thus entirely missing the admin reverting/protecting cycles), is there any point in attempting to collect further evidence of (in my view) the harrassment and goading which led to this point? - Amgine 22:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since no member of the ArbCom have responded in one week's time, I can only assume there is no point in adding further evidence. - Amgine 18:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since I was the only one working actively on the matter, and have now turned to other matters, no answer means little. Try to present a brief, well organized evidence section that clearly links to the problems you think exist. Fred Bauder 19:20, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
There's also a decent chance of the ArbCom members being otherwise occupied with family engagements in light of the end-of-year holiday season. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
From the outset it was obvious that CD would be banned, at least from editing Jesus-based articles. But the gang that opposed him/her does not receive the least censure. The notion that is current that a minority voice cannot satisfactorily edit controversial articles because they are defended by packs of POV-pushing editors has been endorsed again, and in the worst way. CD has shown some willingness to compromise. I'm not surprised ey feels bemused by the way things have gone. I think ey felt ey could not get a fair hearing at any point in this process and that those opposing him would get a pass (even when, in the case of John Kenney one abused his admin powers to push his POV). Why are we not trying to rehabilitate this user? Why have the editors involved rushed to punish eir for disagreeing with them, which seems eis major crime, even if ey has disagreed quite forcefully? There's been precious little wikilove expended by anyone in this case.
Dr Zen 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
Or they might be but have greater numbers! Since when was rightness a function of size of gang? Dr Zen 11:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am going to make a personal plea for CheeseDreams. A year off "christianity-related" articles is very harsh, given CD's involvement in them. Can CD not be placed on a revert parole? A personal attack parole? Give him/her a chance at least. That's the way here, surely. I think there was bad on both sides. Okay, CD stepped way over, but largely he/she felt overwhelmed by quite fierce opposition. He/she did substantiate some of his/her opinions but was still shouted down. His/her "personal attacks" were not generally abusive of people but of ideas. Some of the editors on the other side were abusive of CD but no action is being taken against them. It seems to have been assumed that CD is a troll who needs severe punishment. But I think there is enough doubt to allow him/her the rope to hang him/herself with. Please think about it. Dr Zen 11:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"For repeatedly filing frivolous Requests for Comment, the number of RFCs open that were started by Cheeseofdreams is limited to one unless it is demonstrated to an administrator that there is a serious need for the RFC."
This strongly implies that admins are and should be a privileged class. Why should CD have to demonstrate to an administrator that there is a serious need for the RFC and not just to any editor? Admins are supposed just to be editors with special abilities and special responsibilities. I don't think the arbcom should promote the view that their judgement should weigh more or that they should be on-the-spot arbiters. There is already far too much of that here. Laughing about "cabals" on the mailing list is all good fun, but creating a hierarchy like this, along with the extremely harsh penalties handed out to what might be described as dissenting voices, is helping create an atmosphere that is no longer the dreamed-of collegium. Dr Zen 22:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does the current injunction against Cheese Dreams editing articles related to Christianity extend to articles about the Christian Bible, and various books found in it? Would it also extend to creating templates relating to the Bible, and then inserting them into multiple articles? See here for examples: [5] . Jayjg | (Talk) 17:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The latter redirects to the former. Also, the work I have seen by the latter is entirely consistent with the kind of work (style and content) of the former. Slrubenstein 18:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does the scope of the injunction include the talk pages of articles concerning Jesus? CheeseDreams just wrote the following. By the way, can someone explain to me why this is not evidence of trolling? She is simply making things up to waste editors' time: [6] Slrubenstein 19:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I do not contest it, but I do think arbitratrs should discuss the rationale and the possibility that there might be conditions where someone should be banned from talk pages as well. Slrubenstein 20:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have never denied that "everyone" meets it. I have been in edit wars with others who have met the standard, and I gave in. Slrubenstein 20:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please see:
Thank you. IZAK 09:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No way. CheeseDreams is not banned from Jewish issues and your connection with Christianity is spurious. Why should she not point out that these articles lack balance and need NPOVing? The problem I have with the anti-CheeseDreams editors is that they do not accept or acknowledge that they are actually defending a POV, and articles written from that POV.
I remind myself that one of these editors suggested that the influence of Jesus on world history was a good reason to believe he existed. Another insisted that a discussion of syncretism had no place in an article on Jesus's historicity. Another attacked CD for suggesting that some of Paul's epistles are disputed, when this is by no means controversial.
As for the koans thing, well, Jesus's parables are reminiscent of koans. It's not insulting to Jesus or Christianity. It's an interesting thought, not original to CheeseDreams and could have been covered fairly in the article in question. Instead, there was hostility, polls (which were not means to create consensus but to silence CheeseDreams) and staunch opposition.
I'm not kidding myself that CheeseDreams is a model Wikipedian, but how does this legalistic, run to teacher behaviour on the part of IZAK, trying to catch CD out and have her punished further on a technicality, help? Where's the understanding, the wikilove? Dr Zen 10:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell she made those edits before the injunction went into effect. Rhobite 17:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
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)
CD is perhaps not worse than Wik in the matter of reverting. CD is most certainly worse than Wik and VV, at least, in the matter of turning articles into absolute nonsense, and arguing obnoxiously for days on talk pages, and so forth. Wik (at least until he created a vandalbot) was a good editor with horrible social skills, too much eagerness to revert, and too little patience to explain what he was doing. VV (and Shorne, I think), tends to push a POV, and is also eager to revert. But CheeseDreams is a different sort entirely. Either her POV is so incredibly strong that she can't even consider anything beyond it, or she is a troll. I still haven't decided yet. As such, any allowance for her to involve herself in these pages will just mean that those pages will continue to be unworkable. Only now that the injunction has been in place have we been able to make any progress over at Cultural and historical background of Jesus. A revert parole might work, but I'm pretty doubtful. I would also note that an article with "Jesus" in the title is surely Jesus-related (and, thus, Christianity-related). If it were simply an article on "the time and culture of 1st century Judaea," it would be ridiculously POV to call it "Cultural and historical background of Jesus." It has to be an article about how the time and culture of 1st century Judaea related to Jesus, or else it is utterly absurd. john k 20:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article in question acknowledges that some believe Jesus never existed. But it would be misleading to retitle the article as being about the background for the stories. This article draws on and references historians who are discussing what a real person, Jesus, most likely did given our knowledge of the history and culture of the period. If Dr. Zen is sincere about whating to represent all views, and not censor any one, then he should understand why this article should be kept. I happen to agree that another article, on the cultural and historical background of the Jesus stories, would be a good article. But it would be a different article. Slrubenstein 20:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm a little bit amazed at the sentence proposed for TBSDY. 30 days?!? We've handed out bans of that length to bad-faith users before, so handing them out in this case is a bit extreme.
I've looked at the alleged edit, and I can't see much malicious intent in it - what purpose would it serve? It could've even been a technical accident. It's not as if he's removing diffs or changing the intent of others comments.
A ban of 30 days for a technicality is likely to drive a lot of good-faith editors away, particularly in this case. If you're going to do this with a prolific and helpful editor who does a myriad of non-controversial work, it'd be nice if at least find some substantial evidence of wrongdoing could be found. Ambi 00:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The basic idea is that you should leave others' edits alone on an arbitration page. The Arbitrators will decide is something is in order or not. Removing a request for a temporary injunction is a serious offense. Just messing around with someone's signature (had it actually happened) would be bad but not as serious.
Fred Bauder 16:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
It's already been decided you'll hang, CD. Fred's just trying to influence what for. Dr Zen 23:04, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
I've just spent a good deal of time detailing why the last revert that CheeseDreams did on that page are totally POV, have plenty of weasel words, and are mostly unrelated content! See Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Disputed. So I notice with interest that there is a section that says:
Does this mean that CheeseDreams shouldn't be editing this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since this RfA is moving unusually rapidly to decision phases, and I've only thoroughly worked through November 6 in a single article (and thus entirely missing the admin reverting/protecting cycles), is there any point in attempting to collect further evidence of (in my view) the harrassment and goading which led to this point? - Amgine 22:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since no member of the ArbCom have responded in one week's time, I can only assume there is no point in adding further evidence. - Amgine 18:36, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Since I was the only one working actively on the matter, and have now turned to other matters, no answer means little. Try to present a brief, well organized evidence section that clearly links to the problems you think exist. Fred Bauder 19:20, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
There's also a decent chance of the ArbCom members being otherwise occupied with family engagements in light of the end-of-year holiday season. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:25, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
From the outset it was obvious that CD would be banned, at least from editing Jesus-based articles. But the gang that opposed him/her does not receive the least censure. The notion that is current that a minority voice cannot satisfactorily edit controversial articles because they are defended by packs of POV-pushing editors has been endorsed again, and in the worst way. CD has shown some willingness to compromise. I'm not surprised ey feels bemused by the way things have gone. I think ey felt ey could not get a fair hearing at any point in this process and that those opposing him would get a pass (even when, in the case of John Kenney one abused his admin powers to push his POV). Why are we not trying to rehabilitate this user? Why have the editors involved rushed to punish eir for disagreeing with them, which seems eis major crime, even if ey has disagreed quite forcefully? There's been precious little wikilove expended by anyone in this case.
Dr Zen 23:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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)
Or they might be but have greater numbers! Since when was rightness a function of size of gang? Dr Zen 11:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am going to make a personal plea for CheeseDreams. A year off "christianity-related" articles is very harsh, given CD's involvement in them. Can CD not be placed on a revert parole? A personal attack parole? Give him/her a chance at least. That's the way here, surely. I think there was bad on both sides. Okay, CD stepped way over, but largely he/she felt overwhelmed by quite fierce opposition. He/she did substantiate some of his/her opinions but was still shouted down. His/her "personal attacks" were not generally abusive of people but of ideas. Some of the editors on the other side were abusive of CD but no action is being taken against them. It seems to have been assumed that CD is a troll who needs severe punishment. But I think there is enough doubt to allow him/her the rope to hang him/herself with. Please think about it. Dr Zen 11:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"For repeatedly filing frivolous Requests for Comment, the number of RFCs open that were started by Cheeseofdreams is limited to one unless it is demonstrated to an administrator that there is a serious need for the RFC."
This strongly implies that admins are and should be a privileged class. Why should CD have to demonstrate to an administrator that there is a serious need for the RFC and not just to any editor? Admins are supposed just to be editors with special abilities and special responsibilities. I don't think the arbcom should promote the view that their judgement should weigh more or that they should be on-the-spot arbiters. There is already far too much of that here. Laughing about "cabals" on the mailing list is all good fun, but creating a hierarchy like this, along with the extremely harsh penalties handed out to what might be described as dissenting voices, is helping create an atmosphere that is no longer the dreamed-of collegium. Dr Zen 22:40, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does the current injunction against Cheese Dreams editing articles related to Christianity extend to articles about the Christian Bible, and various books found in it? Would it also extend to creating templates relating to the Bible, and then inserting them into multiple articles? See here for examples: [5] . Jayjg | (Talk) 17:16, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The latter redirects to the former. Also, the work I have seen by the latter is entirely consistent with the kind of work (style and content) of the former. Slrubenstein 18:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does the scope of the injunction include the talk pages of articles concerning Jesus? CheeseDreams just wrote the following. By the way, can someone explain to me why this is not evidence of trolling? She is simply making things up to waste editors' time: [6] Slrubenstein 19:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I do not contest it, but I do think arbitratrs should discuss the rationale and the possibility that there might be conditions where someone should be banned from talk pages as well. Slrubenstein 20:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have never denied that "everyone" meets it. I have been in edit wars with others who have met the standard, and I gave in. Slrubenstein 20:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please see:
Thank you. IZAK 09:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No way. CheeseDreams is not banned from Jewish issues and your connection with Christianity is spurious. Why should she not point out that these articles lack balance and need NPOVing? The problem I have with the anti-CheeseDreams editors is that they do not accept or acknowledge that they are actually defending a POV, and articles written from that POV.
I remind myself that one of these editors suggested that the influence of Jesus on world history was a good reason to believe he existed. Another insisted that a discussion of syncretism had no place in an article on Jesus's historicity. Another attacked CD for suggesting that some of Paul's epistles are disputed, when this is by no means controversial.
As for the koans thing, well, Jesus's parables are reminiscent of koans. It's not insulting to Jesus or Christianity. It's an interesting thought, not original to CheeseDreams and could have been covered fairly in the article in question. Instead, there was hostility, polls (which were not means to create consensus but to silence CheeseDreams) and staunch opposition.
I'm not kidding myself that CheeseDreams is a model Wikipedian, but how does this legalistic, run to teacher behaviour on the part of IZAK, trying to catch CD out and have her punished further on a technicality, help? Where's the understanding, the wikilove? Dr Zen 10:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell she made those edits before the injunction went into effect. Rhobite 17:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
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)
CD is perhaps not worse than Wik in the matter of reverting. CD is most certainly worse than Wik and VV, at least, in the matter of turning articles into absolute nonsense, and arguing obnoxiously for days on talk pages, and so forth. Wik (at least until he created a vandalbot) was a good editor with horrible social skills, too much eagerness to revert, and too little patience to explain what he was doing. VV (and Shorne, I think), tends to push a POV, and is also eager to revert. But CheeseDreams is a different sort entirely. Either her POV is so incredibly strong that she can't even consider anything beyond it, or she is a troll. I still haven't decided yet. As such, any allowance for her to involve herself in these pages will just mean that those pages will continue to be unworkable. Only now that the injunction has been in place have we been able to make any progress over at Cultural and historical background of Jesus. A revert parole might work, but I'm pretty doubtful. I would also note that an article with "Jesus" in the title is surely Jesus-related (and, thus, Christianity-related). If it were simply an article on "the time and culture of 1st century Judaea," it would be ridiculously POV to call it "Cultural and historical background of Jesus." It has to be an article about how the time and culture of 1st century Judaea related to Jesus, or else it is utterly absurd. john k 20:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The article in question acknowledges that some believe Jesus never existed. But it would be misleading to retitle the article as being about the background for the stories. This article draws on and references historians who are discussing what a real person, Jesus, most likely did given our knowledge of the history and culture of the period. If Dr. Zen is sincere about whating to represent all views, and not censor any one, then he should understand why this article should be kept. I happen to agree that another article, on the cultural and historical background of the Jesus stories, would be a good article. But it would be a different article. Slrubenstein 20:29, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)