Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Cabal of Fundamentalists

User:CheeseDreams frequently employs abusive language, violates the 3RR rule, and fuels edit wars, and other dispute resolution methods have failed. This opinion is held by (amongst others)
 * IZAK
 * Josiah
 * Eequor
 * Slrubenstein
 * Wetman
 * Jayjg
 * jguk
 * Sam Spade
 * Piglet (who is possibly a sock puppet)
 * john k
 * JDG

It is POV distortion and a seriously offensive form of harrassment this opinion is held by
 * CheeseDreams


 * This is not an opinion I hold. I have asked in relation to one incident for the 3RR to be applied to CheeseDreams (though 2 or 3 times in relation to that one incident). That is not a claim that he "frequently" violates the 3RR, but a claim that he has in relation to one incident violated it. I have not claimed, and have no opinion on, whether CheeseDreams frequently employs abusive language or fuels edit wars. jguk 22:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This action, taken by CheeseDreams, is an action of a desperate troll! It just makes me laugh! *LOL* Me? A sock puppet? Give us proof! Piglet 03:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is originally a "Vandalism in Progress" and then a "Request for Comment" see that page with fuller details

N.b. some members of the arbitration committee such as Jwrosenzweig are already involved parties (albeit in minor ways) with this user, unfortunately CheeseDreams 00:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please note that CheeseDreams currently has a Request for Mediation, Request for Comment, and a Vandalism in Progress currently against him. He is currently faced with allegations of user page vandalism, abusive language, begining multiple edit wars and violations of the 3RR rule. His RfA should be denied on the grounds that he has not attempted any dispute resolution methods, nor has he satisfied the other requirements for an RfA. Furthermore, he is only pointing out allegations against him (as of this posting), and he has not given any reasons that RfA's should be opened against those mentioned above.--Josiah 00:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Note that Josiah is one of the accusers above. Further, harrasment is the reason to open RfAs against the above. Evidence of this is visible on the linked request for comment page. CheeseDreams 00:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note to arbitrators : I am more interested in a ruling on the subject of CheeseDreams 01:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note to Jwrosenzweig. I pointed out your name as I think that involved parties should not sit in positions of judgement, whether on my side, or on the opposite. In english courts of law, if a judge knows a witness or defendant, in any way, in a non-judge capacity, they must resign the case. This is only fairness. CheeseDreams 21:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Note to Arbtrators: CheeseDreams has cited me as a defendant in this case. He has not cited evidence of me holding the view he claims of me (I note above that I do not hold the view he ascribes to me), and he has made no attempt at dispute resolution with me. I therefore ask that the case against me be summarily dismissed. I also note that I only found out that a case had been brought about me by chance, there was no notification of this on my talk page. jguk 22:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note to Jongarretuk. You signed the RfC supporting the above summary which is at its head. Would you like to remove the signature? CheeseDreams 01:19, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I signed no such thing. At its head is a comment I made on another page that someone else copied onto that page. You will note that I have not signed as one of those who endorse the RfC. Indeed, the history of that RfC page shows I only made one edit, which was correcting Sunborn, who was under a misapprehension vis-à-vis the three revert rule. jguk 07:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * CheeseDreams, are you bringing this RfAR against anyone who signed your RfC? Jayjg 03:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who is raising this arbitration, and who is it against? Jayjg 22:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * O.K., let me get this straight, CheeseDreams has raised an RfAR against all these people based on his opinion of what their opinion is of him? Jayjg 23:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This seems abusive of RfAr in light of the debate at Requests for comment/CheeseDreams. -- 23:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I ask that the arbiters take this case, since it appears to me that Cheese is actively trying to be banned, and providing him the opportunity to make his case might be the best for the community. This guy has been a non-stop problem user, his RFC and edit history attests to that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * p.s. I did sign the "fundamentalist" list on his user page


 * Sam - this is a case being brought against us by CheeseDreams. It is not being brought against CheeseDreams. If you want to bring a case against CheeseDreams do so - but since plaintiffs don't get bans, only defendants who lose their case, the result of this case will not be a ban for CheeseDreams. Also, and please accept this as a bit of friendly advice, playing the man not the ball in your defence (see ad hominem) is never accepted by the Arbitration committee. jguk 00:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear Arbitrators: I cannot fathom Cheesedreams "logic" at all. The only "reason/s" that he cites for this RfA of his, is that because other users have listed their documented complaints against him in a clear-cut RfC. Please read the contents of that page at Requests for comment/CheeseDreams PRIOR to considering CheeseDreams claims. It is he that now (yet again) uses a slur by calling a large number of Users "fundamentalists". He should apologize soon. Thank you. IZAK 05:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal of the above. The users listing their complaints operate a cabal. This is clear from their editing, and the manner in which they contact each other to edit that page.
 * IZAK, note the quotation marks. Note that Sam DID sign his name as being a fundamentalist. Note that I am owed an apology by many of the accusers. Note that I requested the arbitrators look at the RfC page. CheeseDreams 08:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheesedreams I have NO idea what "cabal" you are talking about. What do I have to do with Sam Spade as we are usually on very opposite sides of the Wikipedia spectrum (it is YOU that has lumped us together for a change, for which I should "thank" you I suppose), I also have had some deep differences of views with some of the other people you call "fundamentalists" which is a very INSULTING word BTW and you should not use it as it has many negative connotations. I do not speak for Sam and he does NOT speak for me! I have listed all your objectionable actions, as I experienced them first hand, very CLEARLY on the Requests for comment/CheeseDreams page and they are all based on YOUR editorial (non) behavior since you came to Wikipedia one month ago (are you sure you haven't been here before...hmmmm?). IZAK 10:28, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, you lumped yourselves together for this.
 * "Fundamentalists" contains quotations marks.
 * Though the cabal has internal factions, it nethertheless operates to maintain POV on articles - see the way that, for example, some of the articles I edited were reverted by elements of the cabal in turn.
 * P.s. I am sure I haven't been here before, but are you? CheeseDreams 20:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation was attempted, which along w numerous attempts to correct cheese on User talk:CheeseDreams and the RFC and innumerable talk page discussions demonstrate earlier steps in the dispute resolution process which have failed. 20:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The above was inserted by Jdforrester.
 * I reiterate that the talk page comments were not "attempts at dispute resolution" but "attempts at silencing".
 * Further I reiterate that Slrubenstein and I (and Amgine (on my side of the fence)) are still in Mediation, and it has still only just started (ask The mediator (whose username I may have mis-spelt). CheeseDreams 00:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am accusing cheese of trying to get banned, and behaving badly in a consistant manner in order to do so. See the RFC and edit history. I hope that clears things up. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Deliberately asking to get one's self banned is not against wikipedia policy, Sam. And that is not the purpose of it. Think carefully about what I can gain by RfAr-ing myself, Sam (or should I say Jack). CheeseDreams 20:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is absurd. Why on earth does CheeseDreams get to state what my opinion of her is? john k 06:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * To arbitrators, I am accusing the above of operating a cabal, and using it to enforce their POV, and harass those who disapprove (such as me), for example by using RfC to operate a "who can slag CheeseDreams off more" competition. They are accusing me of abusive language, violates the 3RR rule, fuels edit wars, failures of dispute resolution (see the RfC) page. CheeseDreams 08:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, so I was right, you are bringing an RfAR against anyone who signed the RfC against you. But how did I get into the "cabal"?  I've never touched your RfC. Jayjg 18:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are in the cabal. For example, Slrubenstein and culture.
 * I have seen other evidence of such behaviour on pages I only read rather than edit, in addition to those I edit as well.CheeseDreams 20:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You are partly right. I am bringing an RfAr against the cabal. Not all signatories to the RfC are part of it, though the majority are. I am also bringing an RfAr against myself. I will only explain the reasoning behind such an act to arbitrators, though if you have intellect, you should be able to work it out. CheeseDreams 20:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)