Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision

Proposed ban of Ta bu shi da yu

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 change was obviously a technical accident. The original edit was made by Cheese Dreams [1] In a later edit Cheese Dreams removed TBSDY's comment [2] and then modified her own comment. [3] TBDSY then reverted to his previous version of the Proposed decision page [4], not realizing that Cheese Dreams had made other changes besides removing TBSDY's comment. Jayjg 02:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What would have been really nice would have been me to have been alerted of the error and giving me a chance to explain it/fix it instead of just proposing to ban me for 30 days. This really pisses me off. The first I knew of it was when I looked at the proposed decision. I never got contacted by any ArbCom members or got alerted by anyone, even though CheeseDreams removed my comment first! And I didn't realise I'd removed material until I looked at the diff. So much for Arbitrators following their own policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I'm lucky I'm reasonably well known and have some decent people speaking up for me. Just imagine what would happen to a newbie who made a similar mistake! Good grief. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, incidently. Let's be fair. CheeseDreams also should be seen to have reverted my changes as a matter of good faith. There appears to be much confusion about how to add statements of complaint to this page. I've actually removed my request and added it to the request for Arbitration as another admin on WP:AN has told me I can't really add new material to the existing ArbCom case. So I think the proposed 90 day ban should be removed on CheeseDreams as it's not clear what procedure is on this matter. And a question: why was the ban on CheeseDreams 90 days and the ban on myself 30 days?! I might be shooting myself in the foot here, but that also hardly seems fair. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I think anyone can add a request for a temporary injunction, which is what you were doing. I do find it a bit unfair that bad faith was assumed so quickly, though. Johnleemk | Talk 11:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little unconvinced that this was a simple "accident". In fairness, this is not the first time TBSDY has reverted and removed unrelated edits. Usually when this happened before, he did so by using rollback (which revert all consecutive edits). I think TBSDY shows some overall sloppiness in this regard, and have mentioned this to him many times.

Let me offer another view to counter Jayig's explanation. At 14:49, TBSDY requests the injunction. This is followed by CD's edits at 18:25 and 19:19. At 23:08, TBSDY reverted back those two versions. I note the times lest anyone think this was a simple edit conflict. Since TBSDY did not use rollback on this occasion, in order to revert, he must have gone into the page history, clicked on the 14:49 version, edited (no change), then saved. When TBSDY was viewing the history, he could not have missed the two edits he was reverting. He also should have known that he was reverting multiple changes because both of CD's edit summaries were different – one refered to "Ta bu shi da yu" and the other showed an unrelated edit to the "Some of my accusers use sock puppets" section.

I really cannot explain how TBSDY missed this fact, and so I'm not convinced this is "obviously a technical accident". -- Netoholic @ 16:16, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu cannot explain how he missed that fact either. Hence the reason for it being a technical mistake. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am totally convinced this TBSDY's action was a technical accident CheeseDreams 20:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But assuming malicious intent in this case makes absolutely no sense. Look at the edit. What possible benefit could there be in deliberately making said change? Ambi 16:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear TBSDY just found his previous version, and copied it back. CheeseDream's other edits were obscure, and easily missed. And as Ambi points out there was no motive for TBDSY to make the change maliciously, as it did not benefit him (or discomfit CheeseDreams) in any way. Sloppiness is not great, but it is far from willful intent. Jayjg 17:50, 16 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)

Understood, but it's quite possible (nay likely) that Cheesedreams really thought that TBSDY's addition was in the wrong place, and that it was OK to move it. As evidence of that, she certainly didn't make any attempt to hide what she'd done, or do it unlogged-in, or anything. No real harm, no foul; plus to which I think the "one warning at least" principle" probably applies. She's in enough trouble on other points, please cut her some slack on this one. Noel (talk) 16:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I think your (Fred Bauder's) "Nay" vote at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Proposed decision#Modification of other user's material on arbitration page is missing a "#", but I daren't modify the page to fix it! Oops, I got confused by the formatting - I should have realized that Jayjg is not an arbitator. Noel (talk) 16:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is possible she didn't know that. She's not been around for that long. Like Noel says, can we please cut her some slack on that one? I doubt she'll do it again. I know I won't. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page in question clearly states "parties not involved in this case must not edit this page". TBSDY is not mentioned in the "The parties" section, therefore the removal of comments by TBSDY is entirely justified. Further, Fred Bauden explicitely requested, on my talk page "please remove comments not made by parties in the dispute from the arbitration page".

I find it entirely bad faith, and utterly biased, and in fact hypocritical, that Fred Bauden should then decide a 3 month ban for complying with his own request. CheeseDreams 20:09, 16 Dec 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)

My ban

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)

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)

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)

Historicity of Jesus

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:

Pending a final decision in this matter CheeseDreams is banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity. This ban is based on aggressive POV editwarring as illustrated by the edit history of Historicity_of_Jesus.

Does this mean that CheeseDreams shouldn't be editing this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that is only true after the proposed temporary order is accepted by at least four arbitrators. -- Netoholic @ 16:20, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

From reading the arbitration policy (which, it must be pointed out, does not contain provision for pre-closing-the-case injunctions), decisions are only valid if achieved by majority -

Majority shall be defined as a decision supported by more than 50% of all Arbitrators who were active

There are 8 arbitrators, 1 recused, therefore there are 7 active in this case. The majority required is therefore 4.

Question regarding evidence collection/decision

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)

More to the point, is there any interest by any of the arbitrators (especially Fred Bauder) of actually paying some attention to the evidence-for-the-defence ? CheeseDreams 02:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have to point out that whatever CheeseDreams' failings, that we were able to come to an amicable understanding on the issue (see my "evidence"). Now, this may well be on account of my own personal POV on religion, which is likely more in-line with CD's than some other Wikipedia editors. Nevertheless, I think that the outright accusations of troll or vandal are misplaced when levelled at CD. The worst I would charge CD with would be religion-baiting. It seems that CD may be slightly more zealous than prudent in holding up to obloquy some rather silly notions held by certain religious faiths, perhaps on account of CD's own personal POV. That being said, I think that some of our normally level-headed editors were rather more zealous than prudent in TAKING said bait, perhaps on account of their own personal POVs. But that's just my 2¢. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe, at this point I should point out that on my talk page (now archived in archive 1) I have stated that I lay traps. Sam Spade/Jack Lynch was the first to fall into one. CheeseDreams 01:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, I think that the outright accusations of troll or vandal are misplaced when levelled at CD. The worst I would charge CD with would be religion-baiting." ... I have to say I am more inclined to agreem with this view than a "trollish" view. As commented on the RFAr talk page, I think this isn't as one sided as either side have claimed, and some rather extreme interpretations of behaviour should be considered critically. FT2 20:55, Dec 21, 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)

Agreed. Remember that ArbCom members aren't paid for this. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:28, 24 Dec 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)

Frivolous Requests for Comment

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)

"If everyone disagrees with you, you might be wrong"

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 agree. IMO, the number of people with steadfast beliefs in certain supernatural phenomena is staggeringly huge... that doesn't make them right. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Jan 5, 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)

Given that at one point CheeseDreams had left the article Historicity of Jesus in an unusable state, was part of the reason for the page protection, pushed her POV into the article (did you know that at one point the entire article had only CD's material in it, and I had to put back all the material editors had been working on for ages?) and refused to let others contribute AND due to the fact that her contribution history shows that she has been targetting Christian articles and trying to get around consensus (witness Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be) I think the ban on editing Christian articles is fair. We don't encourage POV warriors, something that IMO has been proven about CheeseDreams. Sorry if it seems harsh, but I didn't cause these issues: CheeseDreams did! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:07, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed again, let's not go overboard here. There's a difference between attacking a person and attacking the positions that a person asserts to support. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Special abilities, not a separate rank

"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)

Administrators are users whose judgement has been proven trustworthy. On the other hand, if we required her to demonstrate to any user, there would be nothing to stop Cheese of Dreams from finding anybody - be it a troll, vandal, or even one of her own sockpuppets - to endorse frivilous RFCs, thus making the requirement useless. →Raul654 22:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

Administrators are users who once passed a vote, Raul. Whether your judgement is trusted or not is a matter of what dealings an editor has had with you. I do recognise that there are some admins who believe they should be imbued with broad discretion, and some even that believe the rules don't apply to them. I know of at least one who believes he should act outside the rules and wait for the rules to catch up with him. I guess I'm addressing those who have a firmer belief in the principle of equality that guides Wikipedia. Dr Zen 23:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Raul, Zen has a point. Admins are decidedly NOT those users whose judgement has proven trustworthy otherwise there would never be a need to desysop or have RfCs for admins. The point is that we SHOULD keep a very tight leash on the roles that only admins are allowed to play. I think that aside from ADMINISTRATIVE functions, they should be just like any other user. It's probably best to just let CD set up any RfCs she sees fit and trust that she can be convinced of the futility and ultimate counterproductivity of flooding the RfC page with countless RfCs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:21, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Scope of Injunction

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)

Forgive me, since I haven't followed this to closely, but has it been confirmed that User:CheeseDreams and User:Cheese dreams are the same person? -- Netoholic @ 18:25, 2005 Jan 6 (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)

Cheese Dreams created a number of sockpuppets at one point (including Cheese dreams) when she was briefly banned. She has directed the user page of Cheese dreams to Cheese Dreams, which I would consider fairly conclusive. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your standards for evidence are lacking. If someone wanted to further injure Cheese Dreams' status here by performing these acts, it would be trivial to create an account and redirect the user pages. The developers can check things like incoming IP address to confirm reasonable if this is the same person. -- Netoholic @ 22:59, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

So what's the problem? If that's an impersonators account, then they get blocked. The real CheeseDreams will be in no way effected by that block. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Cheese dreams has responded for User:CheeseDreams, edited pages by and for User:CheeseDreams, continued edit wars started by User:CheeseDreams etc. for 3 weeks now, and User:CheeseDreams has not complained that she was being impersonated by an imposter. This is not a recent phenomenon. The only reasonable conclusion, based on the available evidence, is that User:Cheese dreams is a sockpuppet for User:CheeseDreams; your own hypothesis is strained and verges on a conspiracy theory. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am just saying, that the committee should get the developers to confirm these accounts are the same person, before taking into account their edits. I am sure you are right, but it is so easy to get the confirmation, rather than anyone speculate. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

If only it were "so easy" to get this kind of confirmation. In my experience it's more like "pulling teeth". Jayjg | (Talk) 20:13, 7 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)

The injunction says "all articles". Talk pages are not "articles", and there is a lot of precendent that people banned from editing topics (as opposed to blanket bans) are allowed to edit talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 19:52, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Netoholic here, though I wish ArbCom decisions were more explicit in these areas. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:13, 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)

No mention of issues with the opposition.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CheesDreams/Cheese dreams violates the injunction: Jan 6 `05

Please see:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams/Evidence#CheeseDreams/Cheese dreams creates TWO new anti-Bible templates violating injunction!

[7]

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)

I think many would argue that the Bible is a rather significant topic in Christianity. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jay, you'd argue that black was orange if it suited your cause. Dr Zen 01:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a rather personal comment, Zen. Do you think that the Bible is not a significant topic in Christianity? Jayjg | (Talk) 02:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think there is absolutely no value to throwing petrol on the faggots when we're burning a witch. Dr Zen 04:10, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, calm down everyone! I've already apologised to her formally on her talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm calm, and actually kind of amused at Zen's personal attacks and non-sequiturs. And I'm still of the opinion that the Bible is actually a significant topic in Christianity, though I'm quite willing to hear arguments to the contrary. :-) Jayjg | (Talk) 04:53, 9 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)

When exactly do injunctions go into effect? When they receive the required minumum of votes (in this case six), or at some other point? If the former, then the injunction was in effect. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They go into effect as soon as someone notifies her on her talk page that it is in effect. I would think anything she did before being notified at 19:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) should be forgiven. Is it fair to punish her because noone from ArbCom bothered to let her know? -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

You have a good point about notification. ArbCom needs to be careful about notifying people, it's not the first time I've seen this issue. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think Netoholic is right. The arbitration process emulates a legal system in many ways, and due process should be one of these ways. It's common sense not to block someone for an injunction until they receive fair warning. Blocking someone for actions which were done preceding an injunction is also ex post facto enforcement. Rhobite 21:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

So doesn't that mean I should be unblocked, and a formal apology be added to my talk page? CheeseDreams 00:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did unblock you, are you still having a problem using your main account? Rhobite 00:49, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed bans on editing articles

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)