Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams

Note: the first CheeseDreams RFC is on Requests for comment/CheeseDreams/RFC1.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:00, 1 Feb 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (CheeseDreams | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
I am upset by the personal attacks that CheeseDreams has engaged in. I also feel that she has been attempting to evade her block on writing about Christian material, which was part of the arbcom material.

Description
CheeseDreams has been implying to various users that they are sock-puppets of different accounts. She implied that I was Rienzo (see ), and then when I asked her to elaborate what she was implying she said that "maybe I will dumb it down for you. After all, you still think the bible is literally true." Now I see that CheeseDreams has asked Bacchiad whether he/she is a sock-puppet She did this because she was disputing article content for The Jesus Mysteries. That was a personal attack. I might also note that her ban on editing articles relating to Christianity is still in force, yet she has still edited that article.

Another personal attack was performed by CheeseDreams against Slrubenstein. She filed a request for arbitration against him, which was universally rejected by all arbitrators, including Grunt, Ambi, Neutrality, mav, sannse, David Gerard and the Epopt. Then she resubmitted it again !

Next we come to her numerous usernames in which she posts under. User:CheeseDreams, User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreams.

She also accused RickK of trolling her user page, when he asked her to stop trolling WP:AN. Her response to me that RickK is not a troll was "I am aware of what I posted, I do not need to look at it further. If he wasn't trolling, he wouldnt be commenting about trolling. Accusations of trolling are themselves trolling, see User:Rienzo for a prime example of this.".

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Submits an RfA against Slrubenstein, universally rejected by all Arbitrators.
 * After this, resubmits it again!
 * Accuses me of posting anonymous abuse on her user page . States that I live in Melbourne. I don't. I'm sick of the harrassment, personally.
 * Refuses to stop harassing me. She replied "no" to a query whether she will stop say I'm using sock puppets.
 * Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159 - CheeseDreams under an IP address (even though she is blocked for a week), posts to User talk:Ben Standeven, User talk:FeloniousMonk, User talk:Bensaccount, User talk:Sunborn and User talk:Rd232 the following:

Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY *1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -  *2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there - , , and most of all  Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and POV attempt to discredit it. Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY *WP:RFC *WP:RFM *WP:RFAR Thanks. Good luck. And don't give in. And just to check what is going on *WP:AN

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * No personal attacks
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * I have already gone to arbitration on this user.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Bacchiad 06:43, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Slrubenstein 18:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:20, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yup, lots of block evasion, amongst other things. I'd like to suggest we allow blanket-reverting of cheese dreams sock puppets while cheese dreams is blocked. --fvw *  18:20, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I have bumped into CD twice. The first time, she reverted my work on Sol Invictus |1 (I wasn't signed in when I wrote it) to a lame redirect |2. Why? According to her edit summary, it was "vandalism". The second time, we butted heads over Osiris-Dionysus, which was arguably in violation of her arbcom ruling, and The Jesus Mysteries, which definitely was. As a result, she called me a sock-puppet. Both of these experiences have diminished both the enjoyment I get, and the usefulness of the time I spend, on Wikipedia. &mdash; Bacchiad 07:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have found the same thing. It's a pity really. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:35, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-

I think it's a little bit silly to have an RfC when the user in question is under a block and has no chance to respond. That being said, the resubmission of the RfAr against Slr is certainly cause for concern. Even taking CD at her word that the first one was serious and not just an attempt at disruption, it is unreasonable to justify the second. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:51, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wasn't this RfC made before she was blocked? I am not sure, but regardless, we certainly should keep this up until the block has ended and she has adequate time to respond. Slrubenstein 18:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, it was made before she got blocked. I can't help it if someone makes breaks their arbcom decision and gets blocked because of it. But I agree that the second RfAr was totally unwarranted! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:13, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, actually, she was blocked as of 23:47, Jan 31, 2005. But as long as the RfC stands until she gets a chance to respond (with no prejudice for responding so "late", obviously) I don't think it's a BIG problem. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:05, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears that even though CheeseDreams has been banned, she is still attempting to harass me. Please see Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159, where she has posted messages to several users in an attempt to have them file ArbCom requests or RFCs filed against me. I have since blocked this IP address for another week! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * CD seems to be devoted to hurting her cause as much as possible. I strongly urge that the Devs look into this issue and determine if there's evidence that the above listed IP is associated with either CD or Tigermoon. In the case that it is, I would suggest an immediate ArbCom hearing on a longer term and wider reaching ban against CD. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:41, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)