Case Opened on 12 February 2005

Case Closed on 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case; editing this page implicitly authorizes the other participants to enter a complaint against you which may be considered by the Arbitrators as may your behavior. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties

Ta bu shi da yu

v.

CheeseDreams

The actions of User:Rienzo and User:Tigermoon relating to this case will also be considered

Statement of complaint

Please limit your statement to 500 words

I am concerned by the recent behaviour of CheeseDreams. She has caused various problems: she edited Osiris-Dionysus, in violation of her ArbCom order not to edit articles relating to Christianity. She submitted an RFAr against Slrubenstein, when this was universally rejected by all arbitrators [1]. This was then immediately resubmitted [2] and then immediately cleared by Ambi. I find this to be harassment and would like some way of stopping CheeseDreams from making frivilous RFCs and RFArs. Mav has suggested that a good way of resolving this issue is to create a class of editors called "vexation litigants" (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5#Cheesedreams), and I think this is a good idea. The idea is that people who are deemed vexatious litigators are put under restrictions where they cannot file a suit without approval from a judge and that we do something similar: those editors can only file RFCs and RFArs with the pre-approval of an arbitrator (not selected by the vexation litigant, it should be chosen by the Arbitration Committee to stop disputes).

My complaint also involves further harassment via an anoymous IP address. CheeseDreams under an IP address (Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159 even though she was blocked for a week), posted 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 -  
[3] 
*2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there -  
[4] ,  
[5], and most of all 
[6]
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

This is harassment, pure and simple. I never got a message on my talk page from CheeseDreams, except for the following: [7], where CheeseDreams accused me of a) being a sockpuppet of User:Rienzo merely because I live in Australia. She states that I live in Melbourne, of being a "literalist christian" (whatever that is) and speak Swedish! This is, to be frank, bizarre behaviour.

I have further concerns with the amount of accounts she has created. She has the accounts User:CheeseDreams, User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreams. She has the possible accounts User:CheeseyDreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams though I can't be sure. User:Jayjg says that there are many more sockpuppets than that, including User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username, though without a developer checking we can't be sure. My point here: I would like all verified sock-puppets blocked indefinitely. A good-fath editor should not normally need more than one account!

Lastly, I am extremely unimpressed by the fact that CheeseDreams tried to do editing by proxy via her friend User:Tigermoon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5#Tigermoon_and_CheeseDreams - many admins feel that this was done to bypass her block. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:05, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note, it is not clear to me whether User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username are direct sockpuppets of User:CheeseDreams, or of User:Tigermoon acting on her behalf. It has also been speculated that User:Tigermoon may, in fact, be a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams, and not just a friend acting on her behalf. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apologies if I misrepresented your comments, Jayjg. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Note User:Red before blue is another of these sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Addendum

Can we please have a developer check whether CheeseDreams sends from 81.156.180.239? This is for two reasons: someone has been annoying the Swedish users (see [8]) and for the harrassment done from Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, please check whether User:Tigermoon is a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams. OneGuy 05:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement by affected party

Please limit your statement to 500 words

Preliminary decision

Comments and votes by Arbitrators (5/0/0/0)

Accept. Neutrality^talk 23:43, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Accept for investigation of sockpuppet abuse. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 23:46, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
Accept -- sannse (talk) 13:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 13:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept Nohat 07:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunctions

Template

1) User:CheeseDreams is banned from editing Wikipedia for the duration of this case except for the pages User:CheeseDreams, User talk:CheeseDreams and the arbitration case pages relating to her.

Passed with four votes at 15:44, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

2) User:CheeseDreams is limited to one account. The following accounts are presumed to be either sockpuppet accounts of CheeseDreams or impersonations of Cheesedreams and are therefore to be blocked: User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams, User:Cheese -dreams, User:CheeseyDreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams. All other sockpuppet or impersonation accounts identified can also be blocked. The password for User:CheeseDreams has been changed for security reasons and will be released to CheeseDreams if she is able to prove her identity. Otherwise the account will remain unavailable and CheeseDreams should mail any evidence she wants considered in her case to User:Sannse

Passed with four votes at 15:44, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Pointless RfCs/RfAs

2) Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet abuse

3) The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged. Abuse of sockpuppet accounts, such as using them to evade blocks and bans, make personal attacks or reverts, or vandalize, is strictly forbidden.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One user or several?

4) For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation accounts

5) Accounts designed to impersonate other contributors are not permitted (see Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Impersonation). Accounts designed to impersonate may be immediately blocked indefinitely by any administrator.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Security of accounts.

6) Contributors are responsible for the security of their password. While accidental breaches are understandable and sometimes unavoidable, a contributor who deliberately releases their password should expect to be held responsible for any malicious edits made as a result.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration rulings

7) Arbitration rulings on the English Wikipedia are binding on contributors to the project and violations will be regarded seriously.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proxy edits

8) "Proxy" edits on behalf of a banned user, or that assist a user in violating an arbitration injunction, are not permitted.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reasonableness and disruption

9) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably with respect to editing and relating to other users. Editing practices that cause disruption to the normal functioning of Wikipedia will not be tolerated.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Findings of Fact

RfCs/RfAs

1) CheeseDreams has made repeated and unreasonable requests for comment and requests for arbitration, outside of the guidelines for these actions [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] ...

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounts

2) It can be assumed that the accounts User:Cheesedreams, User:Cheese Dreams, User:Cheese dreams, User:Cheese-Dreams, User:Cheese-dreams and User:Cheese -dreams and User:Cheese- dreams are sockpuppet accounts of User:CheeseDreams.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation accounts

3) The accounts User:CheeseDreems, User:CheeseyDreams, User:Cheesydreams, User:CheezDreams and User:CHEESEdreams may be impersonations of User:CheeseDreams intended to cause disruption.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deliberate release of password

4) CheeseDreams deliberately released her password for several accounts, either to cause disruption, to encourage others to cause disruption, or to disclaim responsibility for her edits [18]

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disruption of arbitration process

5) CheeseDreams, or someone editing from that account, has attempted to disrupt the arbitration process by repeatedly blanking several case pages [19], [20], [21], [22].

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Violation of previous arbcom rulings

6) Prior to releasing her password, CheeseDreams engaged in edits that violated the Arbitration Committee's previously issued ban on editing all Christianity-related articles for the period of one year [23], [24], [25], [26].

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of sockpuppet accounts

7) CheeseDreams has used sockpuppet accounts to avoid blocks given for violations of arbitration committee rulings (Edit to Christianity related article resulting in block of 5 days from 01:38, 31 Jan 2005: [27]. Repeat of edit using a different account while blocked: [28]. Other edits during the block period: [29], [30], [31])

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Proxy" editing to violate an arbitration ruling

8) User:Tigermoon has made "proxy" edits on behalf of User:CheeseDreams [32], [33], [34]. This continued despite Tigermoon being informed that proxy edits for CheeseDreams were not acceptable (warning: [35], a comparison of the first proxy edit and one of those after Mirv's warning: [36])

Passed 7 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9) Much of the disruption caused by CheeseDreams has been centred on her dispute with User:Rienzo. While there is no technical evidence to verify this, an overall view of the editing patterns of the accounts suggests that it is likely that Rienzo is responsible for some or all of the impersonations and the resulting disruption. Many of the edits presumed to be violations of previous arbitration rulings by CheeseDreams are likely to have been made by Rienzo using impersonation accounts. CheeseDreams reaction to these impersonations has also been disruptive.

Passed 6 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remedies

Ban for disregard of previous rulings

1.2) For a complete disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for six months.

Passed 6 to 2 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ban for disregard of Wikipedia procedure

2) For abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures including arbitration requests and requests for comment, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for three months.

Passed 6 to 2 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ban for sockpuppet abuse

3) For abuse of sockpuppet accounts to further the above disputes, CheeseDreams (under whatever account) is banned for three months.

Passed 6 to 2 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Account restriction

4) CheeseDreams is restricted to editing from the account User:CheeseDreams.

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Restrictions on starting RfCs/RfArs

5.3) CheeseDreams is a vexatious litigant. As such she is prohibited from initiating any requests for comment or requests for arbitration. Should she initiate an RfC or RfAr, she may be blocked for up to one week. Any RfCs or RfArs initiated by CheeseDreams may be removed by any user. Should CheeseDreams feel she has valid grounds for initiating an RfC or RfAr, she may submit those grounds to the Epopt or sannse. That individual arbiter will judge her grounds and decide whether she will be permitted to initiate that particular RfC or RfAr. If she attempts to resubmit an identical RfC or RfAr, she will be blocked for up to one week.

Passed 7 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

6) For significant disruption, relating to a dispute between CheeseDreams and Rienzo, both users are banned for 6 months. Edits by either that attempt to implicate the other, and so to extend this or other bans, will result in this ban being reset for both users.

Passed 7 to 1 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consecutivity of bans

7) All bans of definite length above shall run consecutively (not concurrently).

Passed 8 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(note: arbitration rulings are caped at one year maximum for bans)

Proxy editing

8) User:Tigermoon is reminded that it is not acceptable to "proxy" for a banned or restricted user. While editors can of course make judgements as to whether edits suggested by a restricted user are valid, simply editing for such a user is is regarded as the equivalent of the user making the edits herself.

Passed 7 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enforcement

Account restriction

1.1) If CheeseDreams is found to be editing from any account or IP other than User:CheeseDreams, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and CheeseDreams shall be subjected to a ban of up to one week cumulative with any currently-running bans. If sockpuppets are used to avoid a ban, then that ban shall be reset. IP blocks should be handled as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Ambi 23:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Passed 7 to 0 at 15:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clerk's addendum

On 28 March, 2006, -Ril- (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was determined by the arbitration committee to be CheeseDreams evading her ban.

The -Ril- account was ordered to be blocked indefinitely and the Cheesedreams ban was extended for a further year. --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random admin's addendum

Because User:CheeseDreams revealed her password in public, User:JRM felt forced to change it and, because she does not have an email address set, block her indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]