Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence

Could someone provide a concise summary of the one or two most important charges against CheeseDreams? I've been having a look, and find it difficult to wade through all the detail.

Quite a few of the specific charges seem minor, for example the "personal attacks" don't seem particularly personal. I see no evidence presented on Snowspinner's charge of "POV warrioring". There's no doubt that CheeseDreams has displayed a poor wikiquette. But, the handful of edits I've looked at do not seem terribly outrageous. Filing a handful of RFC's hardly seems like a punishable offense.

The main policy violation I've noticed is violations of the 3 revert rule. That seems moot, since that's now a blockable offense for future violations. I imagine I'm not alone in trying to sift the key allegations from the rather lengthy discussion here and on the various RFC's. Are there one or two really outrageous things CheeseDreams has done, or is the case more of a cumulative frustration one? Wolfman 19:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, the format of ArbCom evidence pages militates against concise and meaningful summaries in favor of lengthy citations of edit histories. For instance, I just want to cite the entire Cultural and historical background of Jesus nonsense as a whole (especially the talk page and archives). I think this mess illustrates the problems with CheeseDreams - an utter unwillingness to compromise, constant accusations that people who disagree with her are part of a "fundamentalist cabal," constant shouting and repetition of the same points no matter what the argument presented against CheeseDreams' views is at this particular time, the absurd insistence that the article's title precluded any discussion of Jesus, the enormous POV summaries of earlier discussions that she insisted on placing at the top of the talk page, the accusations that anyone who looked at the talk page as a result of Slrubinstein putting notices on our talk pages were not valid participants in the discussion, the insistence when progress was actually being made towards some sort of compromise by other participants in the discussion that all this talking about how to make the article better was getting us nowhere, followed by the insistence that instead we needed to each work on a separate version of the article. Further, the mess with Jesus in a cultural and historical background and Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be, into which articles CheeseDreams copied the entire contents of the protected version of Cultural and historical background of Jesus. I cannot think of any incident on Wikipedia that has been less pleasant than this one, and I've frequently been involved in horrific Polish/German place name disputes. I'd love to make a concise and clear summary of this on the evidence page, but the evidence page is so antiseptic and abstracted that I have no real clear idea of how to do this. john k 23:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with everything JohnK says. To be blunt, this is not a case of CheeseDreams' having violated a rule, or any one instance of bannable behavior. As a matter of fact, the problem with CheeseDreams is invisible, if youa re looking at specific acts. At issue is not one tree, but the forest -- a pattern of disruptive behavior that largely involves misconstruing NPOV, and a way of interacting with others on talk pages that makes constructive discussion impossible. To John's list, though I would add CheeseDreams' actions from 1-8 December [1] in which she summarized a complex debate and then sought to replace the actual debate with her summary (in the process, obscuring complex points), one consequence of which was to make the talk page innnccccrrrreeeedddddibbbbbllllyyyyyyyyy long. I would archive the summary; she would put it back in the article. We went back and forth doing this silly silly thing for a whole week. It served no purpose to waste time -- and she just couldn't seem to accept the principle of archiving when a page was over 130 kb long! Slrubenstein

Some people cannot see the forest for the trees. Others cannot see the trees for the forest.

A select few, lucky, and beholden to none other, can see the counterpoint that binds them both. CheeseDreams 02:17, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can someone from the AC tell me if this is valid evidence?

Please check [2] -- there was no explanation on the talk page for why CheeseDreams disputes the neutrality and accuracy; also, since this is not an article but a userpage, it seems inappropriate. Generally, we shouldn't screw with other's userpages, right? Slrubenstein 21:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note also that the dubious template puts in see talk page, when in fact I wrote the explanation inline in tags - as can be seen by the diff.

Personally, I think this has as much validity as the remainder of Slrubenstein's evidence. CheeseDreams 15:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, user pages are unprotected so that others can edit them (fix typos, add barnstars, fulfill to-do lists, whatever), but this seems like harassment to me. Cool Hand Luke 21:51, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's clear cut vandalism. She knows the purpose of those tags. But yes, it's harassment. It also shows that she doesn't like it when people point out issues with her articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FT2's complaint

After reviewing CheeseDream's arguments against my work on the Cultural and Historical Background article, I summed up with this comment:

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)

Apparently, Dr. Zen and FT2 think this is evidence against me. That they might think so reveals something very strange going on at Wikipedia. I have made no personal attack or insult, I am simply reporting a fact. CheeseDreams has made so many arguments that have no basis whatsoever (although I have repeatedly provided the sources for my research, after almost two months CheeseDreams has yet to provide any scholarly sources), and has made so many claims that anyone knowledgeable about Judaism or Jewish history in late antiquity would find laughable on their face, it is clear that CheeseDreams is ignorant. Now, this is not only a legitimate observation -- it is an important and vital claim. If wikipedia is to succede, we have to have standards. Contributions have to be accurate and verifiable, and based on research. If we abandon these standards, then what is the point of it all? Slrubenstein 00:57, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And to be crystal clear, I am not complaining that CheeseDreams is not an academic scholar. I do not believe anyone must be an academic scholar, certainly not to participate fully in editing an article. But non-academic scholars are just as capable of research as academic scholars. I do expect people to contribute to wikipedia based on what they know. Look, if CheeseDreams simply said "I do not understand this, can someone explain -- it would make the article clearer" of if she said "This sentence is too long, or ungrammatical, how about like this," or "Why not move this section over there?" I would welcome her input. But she consistently comments on content and then reveals that she actually is just bullshitting! This is my objection. After two months of dealing with her constant, continual, persistent attempts to change the content of the article to bullshit, yes, I unapologetically feel the article would be better off if she went away. It's not personal, it isn't about me or her, it is about the article. Slrubenstein 13:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I said in the original post on this matter, I dont see the problem as "one or the other". There's lessons on all sides. Some of this could have been avoided by each of you. I get fed up of 2 people both claiming its the other's fault, to be honest. I'll return to the religious articles in a while when it's sorted out more, and people have worked out how to focus on the article and not on picking holes at each other in various ways. FT2 00:16, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

I am not saying I reject all of CheeseDream's work, I am only explaining why I reject what I have rejected. As to fault, I'd be curious to know what CheeseDreams thinks I did first, to antagonize her. More to the point -- FT2 quoted a comment above as if it is an example of something I did wrong. I continue to insist that the comment quoted above was the right thing to say at the time, and important for the project. Slrubenstein 01:15, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)