Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams/RFC1

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 03:13, 29 Nov 2004), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

User:CheeseDreams frequently employs abusive language, violates the 3RR rule, and fuels edit wars, and other dispute resolution methods have failed.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. User:CheeseDreams began a revert war, and repeatedly violated the 3RR rule (7 times on Nov. 28), on the Jesus page: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
2. User:CheeseDreams would not co-operate with a poll concerning the revert war, which was created in order to resolve the situation Talk:Jesus#Koans_-_Poll
3. User:CheeseDreams frequently uses personal attacks:
   1. "point out the patheticness of the counter argument" [8]
   2. "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself" [9]
   3. "The psalms also say that heaven is held up from the earth by 4 pillars in the sea, amongst other stupidities" [10]
4. Examples of Cheesedreams adding {{cleanup}},{{NPOV}}, and {{cleanup}} tags to 50+ pages that he had never worked on: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
5. Redirected links to Sol Invictus to reflect sen POV despite opposition on talk pages: [19]
6. Interfered with attempts to restore the original version of Elagabalus Sol Invictus and move it back to Sol Invictus: [20] [21] [22]
7. Redirected links to Christology and subsequently listed it on VfD, a move for which there is no support
8. User talk page vandalism, where he changes "tastes" to "testes": [23]
9. Words fail: (from VfD)
   • For the love of God, keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 20:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   If Jesus is God, then isn't that Homoeroticism ? CheeseDreams 21:43, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

10. New Testament view on Jesus' life Repeated reversions accompanied by accusations of vandalism and little discussion or engagement on the issues on the accompanying Talk page. See [24], [25], [26], and [27]. In discussion, chief argument in favor of disputed section seems to be a threat to delete the entire article if it goes. In edit comments, CheeseDreams also suggests the section initially came about as the result of an edit war, which appears to be the same tactic being used again. Wesley 04:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
11. CheeseDreams persists in trying to insert koan into Jesus despite all discussions, which cannot be seen as editing in good faith. [28] [29] [30]
12. Has additionally revived Category:Bible stories from deletion, despite "delete" or "rename" receiving 80% of the votes at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Bible stories, and restored the category to every article it had been removed from. [31] [32] [33], etc.
13. Allegations of Nazism: [34]

Users complain about CheeseDream's tags placed without Talk

Here are the complaints of other users to User:CheeseDreams' "editing" (actually just placing tags in them without comment) of articles all within the disputed Category:Bible stories as CheeseDreams disregards the basic rules of Wikiquette. IZAK 05:12, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC):

1. Bel and the Dragon: "Check the User contributions of User:CheeseDreams. This is just one of a long series of articles that has been labelled. Wetman" [35] and "there is no dispute unless you quantify it on the talk page so it can be debated. you refuse to do so, so there's no dispute to even respond to. Explain or stop putting the tags there User:DreamGuy" [36]
2. Belshazzar: "These three labels are being cast about like grass seed by newly-arrived User:CheeseDreams. They are disfiguring, but their value in this entry, where the User has made no edits, can be assessed by a look at this user's contributions. Wetman" [37]
3. Book of Daniel: "Please explain POV or style problems when adding NPOV and cleanup tags User:Rhobite" [38]
4. Book of Job: "Please explain NPOV, cleanup, and expansion tags User:Rhobite" [39]
5. Cain and Abel: "Please explain cleanup tag User:Rhobite" [40]
6. Creation according to Genesis: "All you have to do is change the page as you see fit. The NPOV tag is not appropriate for this page. User:Rednblu" [41]
7. Daniel: "No disputes in Talk: page; this article is not a stub User:Jayjg" [42]
8. Deborah: "no debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, one is enough User:Jayjg" [43]
9. Delilah: No debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, on is enough User:Jayjg" [44]
10. Elijah: "this article is not a stub, and Cheesedreams did not his his NPOV objections. Hence removing those labels. User:Robert Merkel" [45]
11. Elisha: "There are no disputes on the Talk: page, and you don't need two stub notices user:Jayjg" [46]
12. Esther: See User:CheeseDreams most Un-Wikipedian rantings as he placed these comments in bold (sic) on the actual article page: (NPOV) BECAUSE THERE IS MORE THAN ONE VIEW OF THE BIBLE STORIES MEANING.IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT HERODITUS LIVED VERY VERY MANY YEARS LATER THAN THE STORY IS SET. IT FAILS TO POINT OUT THE ACTUAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE STORY AND THAT OF ISTAR MORE THAN SUPERFICIALLY. ((expansion)) BECAUSE THERE IS HARDLY ANY CONTENT HERE AND MANY MANY MANY PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN MANY MANY TRACTS, DISSERTATIONS, PAPERS, SERMONS, MEDITAIONS, ETC. ON EVERY BIT OF THE BIBLE, NO MATTER HOW SMALL." [47]
13. House of Joseph: "it already has a stub notice, it doesn't need two" User:Jayjg" [48]
14. Jacob: "This article is not a stub, and I see no dispute on the Talk: page. Also, please don't revert blindly, you lost valuable text. User:Jayjg" [49]
15. Job (person): "No disputes on Talk: page. Also, one stub entry is plenty, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [50]
16. John the Baptist: "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Amgine User:Theresa knott" [51]
17. Jonah: "One stub notice is plently, don't need two User:Jayjg" [52]
18. Mordechai: "this is not relevant to the WP:CFD debate" User:Jfdwolff [53]
19. Noah: "- unneeded dispute headers User:Sam Spade" [54]
20. Talk:Saint Peter: "Whether the category is kept or not, Peter is not a Bible story. I'm confused about why it would be appropriate to list this article in that category" User:Aranel" [55]
21. Sodom and Gomorrah: "- dispute headers, not helpful here User:Sam Spade" [56]
22. Solomon: "not convinced of any need to have a cleanup (if you disagree - please copyedit the article yourself) User:Jongarrettuk" [57]
23. Solomon's Temple: "this article is not a stub, and there is no dispute on the Talk: page" User:Jayjg" [58]
24. Susanna: "No dispute on Talk: page. Also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [59]
25. Ten Commandments: "rv, see talk User:Yoshiah ap" [60]
26. The Last Supper: "No disputes on Talk: page. Also two stub notices are not required, one is enough User:Jayjg" [61]
27. Talk:Three Wise Men: "NPOV and Cleanup labels: These have been applied recently to this article (and to others) by User:CheeseDreams. That user's actual contributions to this entry may be assessed at the Page History. Wetman" [62] "What an amazingly trivial matter to raise a formal dispute over. Assuming, of course, that is what he/she is disputing. User:CheeseDreams, would you please clarify here on the talk page exactly what you are disputing, or I will feel free simply to remove those labels. -- User:Jmabel" [63]
28. Zacchaeus: "No disputes on Talk: page; also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" c[64]
29. Piglet 17:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
30. Christology: Tags were added without comment by CheeseDreams, removed by another user with explanation, added again by CheeseDreams. Submitted to Votes for Deletion after some discussion on Wikiproject:Jesus which did not reach consensus about what to do with the article, despite claims to the contrary. Wesley 14:17, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
31. Lady Tara 09:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
32. Ta bu shi da yu 21:50, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) CheeseDreams added {{totallydisputed}} and {{dubious}} tags to my user page. Also made many disparaging comments in comment tags. See [65].

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/11 (CheeseDreams controversy)

More may be added. IZAK 05:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus (article)

• Cheesedreams added a "vandalism in progress" note stating "A gang of people, for no adequately explained reason, decided to remove the word "koan" from the article Jesus. They have used 9 reverts so far in 24 hours to try to achieve this aim".
  • It's worth noting that CheeseDreams has done 8 reverts himself, but has not discussed his reinsertion on the talk page. No other editor has exceeded the 3 revert rule. And since the removal of the word "koan" in the first place was not a revert, it is has only been reverted 8 times by 3 editors who disagree with CheeseDreams. I request enforcement of the 3 revert rule against CheeseDreams. jguk 17:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, each user is allowed to revert 3 times, although you have reverted 8 times, and have spit upon wikipedia policy concerning polls.--Josiah 23:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

• (CheeseDreams | talk | contributions)

Series of extremely odd and pointless edits. One user has already suggested a 24-hour ban. -- Eequor 00:17 28 November, 2004 UTC

• Very long vandalism spree. Some kind of ban seems in order. -- Eequor 01:26 28 November, 2004 UTC
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&offset=150&hideminor=0&target=CheeseDreams

Are you getting paranoid? If you examine the history tab, I think you will see that I made the change, not your arch-nemesis. I was simply trying to make a more standard link. This time I have taken more care improving the link you have provided in your latest note. Thank you for signing your note, but please use four tildes ~~~~ for signing notes on this page, rather than your inscrutable signature that you just used. It is inscrutable to standard browsers equipped with standard English fonts, the language used by this Wiki. Also if you include an external link in your signature, de-anonymize the numeral in the same way I de-anonymoused your link above. If you would like to add some characters in another language or symbols, feel free to do so, but only as an addition, please. Also, please don't include long technical strings that have no blanks in them for edit summaries. They screw up our watchlists. Please write simple clear summaries that are free of invective. Hu 04:56, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

Would you mind not editing others' comments? CheeseDreams has already provided ample reason to be suspicious. For example, see [66], which led to [67] rather than a simple reversal of the damage. Also see the edit war here and sen abuse of Christology and VfD.

That wasn't Cheesedreams. That was an unintended side effect of one of Hu's edits -- see [68] It seems he was trying to "clean" the link and ended up breaking it. SWAdair | Talk 04:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 04:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second the accusations of Vandalism by CheeseDreams. He has also been using personal attacks in his edit summaries "point out the patheticness of the counter argument" [69] and "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself" [70].

He repeatedly tries to say that JC used Koans (which are only used in Zen Buddhism) in the Jesus article, and does not submit any evidence for such a claim.--Josiah 17:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Earlier, he vandalized seemingly every article related to Biblical Narratives, putting cleanup and npov tags on each one, without ever having worked on the articles or stating reasons, other than saying "BPOV is not NPOV".--Josiah 17:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, he made no attempts to correct the allegedly POV articles (which is a requirement for the NPOV tag), nor did he ever return to most of those pages except to restore his vandalism.--Josiah 18:26, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

• It's not really vandalism, but I don't know where else to post it. User:CheeseDreams has been adding NPOV, clean-up and expansion templates over a lot (and I mean a LOT) of religious articles, without offering any explanation as to why (s)he thinks those articles are non-neutral, need clean-up or expansion. I think these should be reverted until CheeseDreams explains his/her position. Could some sysops with more time on their hands than me help? jguk 23:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I am not a sysop, but I went ahead and reverted about 50 Bible articles in Category:Bible stories created by User:CheeseDreams. I also placed on each talk page a brief message [saying that I have removed his tags and why, and that] Category:Bible stories is now [on Categories for deletion]." IZAK 10:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As is the companion page Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#List of Bible stories

Kindly sign your comments with the ~~~~ so we can know who is saying things, and if they are worthy of comment. Thank you. IZAK 04:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why does putting ~~~~ determine whether something is worthy of comment? Thats a hugely biased thing to say.

Oh wait a moment I see why now. The point is that it shows where a comment finishes and the next user's reply starts. My apologies to everyone for not seeing this before.

if i may...it seems that most of the entries in wikipedia that i have read that have been edited by cheesedreams seem to be confusing, overtly showing a bias, and include theories not becoming of an "encyclopedia". please allow scholars to write these articles. thanks, --john johnson

(the above user, according to this page's edit history is User:195.91.72.74)

this doesn't belong on VIP at all. If negotiations on Talk pages fail, take her to the arbitrators, who will decide if she is blocked or sanctioned in any way. dab 22:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism to Ta bu shi da yu user page, December 20

• (CheeseDreams | talk | contributions)
  • Vandalised my (Ta bu shi da yu) user page. See [71]. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule (ex: Revert war on Jesus)
2. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution (ex: Koans Poll on Talk:Jesus)
3. Wikipedia:Wikiquette (abusive language)
4. Wikipedia:Civility (abusive language)
5. Wikipedia:Deletion policy (abuse of VfD)
6. Wikipedia:Vandalism
7. Wikipedia:Verifiability (this is a content and not a behavior policy, but it is basic to the integrity of Wikipedia. CheeseDreams consistently refuses to verify content changes made to articles.)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Three_revert_rule 3RR
2. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Abusive_Language Abusive Language
3. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Please Abusive Language
4. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Please_don.27t_misuse_article_tags... Tags
5. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Your_expansion.2C_clean-up_and_NPOV_template_additions Tags
6. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 12#Users CheeseDreams, SIrubenstein and Amgine Mediation request - CheeseDreams, Slrubenstein and Amgine; refused to accept any of SR's nominations for mediator; after her choice was made mediator, withdrew from mediation [72]
7. Talk:Jesus#Koans_-_Poll Koans - Revert War
8. Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/11 (CheeseDreams controversy)

Would all the editors who certify this dispute please post evidence of their attempting to resolve it with CheeseDreams, as requested in the instructions for this page? When editors with unpopular views are ganged up on, they sometimes get defensive. There doesn't seem to be much more than this going on here. Yelling "he started it", "she started it" does not absolve anyone involved of their part in it.

Furthermore, the spirit of the 3RR is surely that reverting edits is not the Wiki way, but discussion and compromise are. I don't see a great deal of those on either side.Dr Zen 02:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. --Josiah 04:00, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

   Could you please post in the section above evidence of your trying and failing to resolve the dispute with CD before this RfC was filed. HistoryBuffEr 20:32, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

2. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 03:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

   Could you please post in the section above evidence of your trying and failing to resolve the dispute with CD before this RfC was filed. HistoryBuffEr 20:32, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

3. Wesley 03:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   I've been asked to cite evidence or examples; I hope this is the right place to do it. First, I asked CheeseDreams to avoid editing or deleting other people's comments as she had done at least twice to me at the time. Rather than ask why it was objectionable or engage in any real discussion of the behaviour, CheeseDreams was defensive and simply justified herself, implying that she would continue in the same behaviour. Regarding rudeness, many people have asked CheeseDreams to be more civil, in various ways, both on her Talk page and elsewhere. Almost without exception, CheeseDreams has justified her manner rather than apologize or tone things down, often by pointing fingers at others. Like I tell my kids, one person's bad behaviour doesn't justify another's misbehaviour. A specific example is when , the Cultural and historical background of Jesus talk page, CheeseDreams "summarized" Slrubenstein's comment as "wondering whether FT2 was masturbating him" or words very close to that. Slrubenstein had actually asked whether FT2 was "yanking his chain." Several people questioned her choice of words on that Talk page but she refused to alter the summary or apologize for it, saying that was the only meaning of the term "yanking his chain" that she knew. On CheeseDreams' talk page, I took pains to spell out the alternate meanings and provided links to two different online "slang dictionary" definitions that provided a more likely meaning of "lied to him", which has so far been met with silence. This example illustrates both editing another's comments so as to drastically change their meaning, and not being responsive to several people's objections. Wesley 04:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

• Since User:CheeseDreams "arrived" at Wikipedia about ONE month ago on 29 Oct `04 [73] he has proven to be a very zealous editor. He has some valid and serious arguments to contribute. However, his abusive, confrontational and insulting ways, as seen for example on his own User home page [74] , cannot be allowed to continue as he has disrupted the equilibrium and the input of many editors. He cannot be a "law unto himself" as we are all subject to the modus vivendi of Wikipedia's functioning. IZAK 05:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Slrubenstein 06:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Not involved in any of these disputes, but user's edits are bizarre and uncivil. Cool Hand Luke 07:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• john k 07:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 09:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Izak -- both that CD has some valid and serious contributions to make here, and that his attitude and style of interacting with other editors is counterproductive (sometimes exceedingly so). Jwrosenzweig 16:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• User:CheeseDreams can be a good editor, who can make valuable contributions. However, he seems to actively enjoy confrontation rather than collaboration (as evidenced by his user page, "I edit controversial articles. They are usually more controversial after I start editing them" and comments on his talk pages). He regulary makes edits which add controversial (and sometimes very minority POV) details to articles, and does not usually provide citations for these until after repeated requests (if at all). This approach frequently leads to edit wars. He also misuses Wikipedia's tags and procedures (eg, his listing of Christology and Creation v evolution debate on VfD). G Rutter 17:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Piglet 22:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• CheeseDreams needs to understand that his contributions have more chance of remaining in articles if he engages the community in a more social manner. His current modus operandi isn't in anyone's benefit: not his, and not anyone elses, as it just ends up wasting everyone's time. Shane King 23:03, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Pedant I worked with CheeseDreams and SLRubenstein on a consensus issue for a while. I agree that CD has value to add to the encyclopedia, but I regrettably feel that he prefers the argument to keep going, rather than to work towards a consensus. I don't think one needs to be religious to work on articles about religion, but its unhelpful to take an adamant position on the validity of an editor's contributions based on what one perceives as that editor's religious point of view. I'd prefer it if CheeseDreams would take it upon himself to attempt to either avoid disputes, or to argue a little more slowly and carefully. I think it's quite significant that the Talk section of Cultural and historical background of Jesus or whatever its current name is, is much longer than the article. It seems as if that's a lot of wasted typing, and the situation might have been easily concluded with a consensus, if all concerned had tried for that result, rather than infinite debate. I ask that CheeseDreams do whatever he can to improve his interpersonal style. I know I'm not one to talk, either, having ruffled a lot of feathers, but I at least try. Pedant 00:24, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)CheeseDreams has now taken it upon itself to redirect this RfC page to an RfA page, is using the reidrect process abusively in general. I am gradually being convinced by CheeseDreams' behaviour that it intends to be a troll on wikipedia, and not a productive editor, and that CheeseDreams intends to use up as many person-hours as possible flailing around at everyone in sight and drawing as many good editors into the conflict as possible. I think at this point that some substantial ban will be required before any progress will be made.Pedant 15:18, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

After looking arond it seemsas if Cheesedreams is going to be an intentional problem, and a permanent one. CheeseDreams has several times duplicated pieces of articles on Jesus and Christianity, seemingly in order to create new controversies. This behaviour has now reached critical mass in my opinion, and that even if Cheesedreams stops editing permanently, the damage this editor has done will last well into the year 2005. I believe that a ban would be appropriate as a way of getting this editor's attention, but that a ban will not solve the problem. I think this will continue for a long time to come, and seems like a deliberate case of trolling rather than overzealous and impolite editing behaviour. Pedant 21:29, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

• CheeseDreams is unapologetically rude; has never to my knowledge apologized for anything at all, or admitted to even the most trivial of errors; and appears to equate "NPOV" with his/her own POV. All of this makes CheeseDreams extremely difficult if not impossible to work with. Also, CheeseDreams not only tried to merge Christology into Christian Views of Jesus#Christology, but also changed most of the articles linking to Christology to link to the new article. This would be great if she had actually reached consensus with other editors first, but as it is the VfD voted to keep the Christology article where it is, so all those links have to be changed back. In short, making huge edits without talking to the rest of the community just results in one mess to clean up after another. Wesley 03:26, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I whole-heartedly agree. The analogy comparing Jesus and God to Homoeroticism was completely uncalled for and in poor taste. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I have been dismayed by CheeseDreams' roughshod edit warring on topics that generally require kid gloves. Frequently abusive. JFW | T@lk 08:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• The charges are that CheeseDreams employs abusive language, violates the 3RR rule, and fuels edit wars (and undermines dispute resolution). This page contains endless links to CD in action on all three fronts. He is massively redirecting people's time and energy away from improving Wikipedia and toward struggling with him. Action is very badly needed. JDG 03:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Viriditas 07:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Rienzo 11:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Lady Tara 09:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I signed the "outside view" below, because I do think some of the accusers are very harsh themselves. But after I have seen the RFC on Jwrosenzweig (of all people!) I am entirely convinced that the sooner CD is banned the better for WP. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 11:31, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Jayjg 21:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I was trying to stay out of this, but I'm concerned about the resurrection of Category:Bible stories. No one has challenged my counting of the votes, and at least one other Administrator agrees with me that it should be deleted (i.e. the Administrator who deleted it). The reasoning has been explained, but I have seen no indication that Cheese Dreams has actually read any of it. (Or has tried to engage me, or the other Administrator, in discussion.) I have a hard time seeing recreating the category and reinserting the articles as a good faith course of action. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 00:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• CheeseDreams made this comment on my talk page: "God isn't pleased at your heresy." Cheesedreams 13:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC). Isn't that sweet, folks? Lady Tara 17:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• CheeseDreams has been busy causing problems for many articles. See Historicity of Jesus. Now see the POV article Authorship of the Pauline epistles. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments responding to Witnesses for CheeseDreams

• (reply to Sunborn[75]) You are mistaken on the three revert rule. It states (and stated at the time of the dispute): "This policy applies to each person......and the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups". This was pointed out to CheeseDreams, who was under the same misapprehension. jguk 09:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• (reply to Sunborn[76]) The problem of multiple reversions is of course a symptom of CD's inability to work with others. But this is a procedural issue. COncerning the Koan business, there is a substantive problem too: her unwillingness to provide verification for her point (doing so would quickly resolve the dispute of course). Slrubenstein

Comments responding to CheeseDream's replies

• (reply to [77]) Not true, since you were moving material from other article or articles to historicity of Jesus in your attempt to refactor and rewrite numerous articles about Jesus. Wesley 03:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• reply to [78]) i am not a sock puppet. i am a new user. john johnson is my real name. i commented on this controversy because in my brief experience of wikipedia, it really seemed like mr. dreams was turning what could be a really great resource(this encyclopedia) into a farce. i thought it my duty to comment on what i saw as a great injustice to truth. as i understand, to call someone a sock puppet is quite an insult in the wikipedia world. i would appreciate an apology. thank you,

--john johnson

Hahahahaha! This is a WAR you can NOT win, CheesyCake! Piglet 21:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments placed incorrectly in the section that may only be edited by those neither defending nor prosecuting CheeseDreams

None of this is evidence of a cabal. I am not sure you know what the word means. In any event, all it is evidence of is the two facts that there are other editors who (1) I think would be interested in a particular page, or (2) whose views I respect. What Wikipedia policy did I ever violate, in asking someone to look at a page? Slrubenstein 19:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ongoing and increasingly damaging

I have not been involved with edit conflicts on the articles in question, but I have been involved in many of the discussions. My impression at present is that CheeseDreams intends to continue to provoke new controversies, without any intent of ever resolving anything. CheeseDreams has broken out sections from articles, including protected articles in order, it seems clear to me, to provoke new controversy. CheeseDreams has used wikipedia processes and tags in an abusive way, further fueling the fire. I think that the problem is not just 'Jesus-related' articles, but that CheeseDreams has no respect for wikipedia itself. It seems apparent to me that Cheesedreams thinks that the wikipedia is of no value, and is systematically attacking the very best things about wikipedia:

• that any article can be edited at any time
• that enough controversy can cause pages to be protected
• that it is actually possible for well-intentioned editors to create NPOV articles about religion and the supernatural
• that it is equally possible to take a stance of such an extreme Point of View as to completely disrupt the entire process of 'wikipediation', due to the desire for neutrality on the part of the community
• that the community, though an ostensible anarchy has well-settled customs and traditiional processes, it is these processes which CheeseDreams flouts by using those processes themselves to increase the range of CheeseDreams assaults on wikipedia.

Although at this point I reluctantly believe banning for an extensive period of time is suitable, I am quite certain it will be ineffective. I believe that in order to rid the community of the problem CheeseDreams has created, that CheeseDreams will need to learn for itself that its behaviour is, in the long view, not going to bring wikipedia down. I think a policy of ignoring CheeseDreams might actually be more effective than any formal punishment. Pedant 22:11, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Response

Counter-points

Eequor's vandalism

Eequor

• reverted Mithraism, removing a large amount of additional material, "on principle" not on content, as declared by himself in the edit summary
• reverted Jesus and Syncretism to some earlier version, on sight not on content, an article which up until that point I was the only editor (aside from about 2 typos), and for which the result of the reversion was to change the presentable version into the half finished mess with parts of other articles littering it

Their side started the edit war and violated 3RR first

If you look at the full history, you will see that I wasn't the one starting the edit war, quite the reverse. Nor was my side the one which crossed the 3 revisions the first time. CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: Someone else starting an edit war or violating Wikipedia's 3RR doesn't give someone else the right to do so as well. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 12:48, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Invalidity of a poll to determine factual accuracy of the use of Koans

The poll was invalid since an opinion poll cannot determine what truth is. And I was the 2nd to engage in the poll. The only other person at that point was the above commenter. CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit histories on articles that were only edited by me

Jesus and syncretism and historicity of Jesus was an article written only by me. If comments in the edit history are personal attacks, they could only be to myself. CheeseDreams 23:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How stupid is the idea of the sky being held up by 4 pillars

And that is not stupid? If you think the sky being held up by 4 pillars isn't stupid then Im quite willing to retract the comment. CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No response needed for this, really but: What is "the sky"... just exactly what is it? Once you settled on that answer...: What does the phrase "hold up the sky" mean? What does "pillar" mean in this context? ... ok, going a little bit deeper, what does CheeseDreams believe "holds up the sky"? and how would you explain that to someone who might not have as sophisticated of an understanding of what holds up the sky as CheeseDreams does? I'm really trying to remind CheeseDreams that these stories are not meant to be modern science, they are explanations that were easy to understand. Of course "everyone knows now that" the pillars actually keep the earth from floating up, right?Pedant 00:36, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Filling 1 category with pages, and commenting on their state

The "mass edits" w.r.t. "biblical stories" are a result of filling a category quickly, and noting the lack of NPOV or the mess on the pages as I went through them. The choice of tag was not arbitrary, nor was it identical, as can be seen by comparing the edit histories in question. CheeseDreams

Opposition to disambiguating Sol Invictus

The opposition

(a) only appeared AFTER the change

(b) was a result of the fallacy that Mithras Sol Invictus is Elagabablus Sol Invictus (since the former occasionally appears without the first word, and did so in the article, but in a manner clearly pointing to its nature as being the former)

CheeseDreams 23:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restoring the disambiguation of Sol Invictus after reversions "on principle" (rather than on content) by Yoshiah ap

Yoshiah's reversions were vandalism. Completely ignoring the reasoning behind the change, and doing so immediately without regard to any justification. In addition, the above also undid the ADDITION of a substantial portion of material to the related article Mithraism, including a previously unknown section on Mithraeum. This was done by Yoshiah on-sight, and announced as such in the edit history. I regard that behaviour as vandalism. CheeseDreams 08:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

False accusation of unsupported vandalism to Christology

I merged the article into Christian views of Jesus, VfD'd the redundant article, and this was a result of SUPPORT for the idea in WikiProject Jesus. CheeseDreams 08:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, I feel that I ought to point out that Wesley's objection to the change was only made after I had carried it out.

And I am unaware why merging a small article called "X" with the section "X" on the larger article "Y" i.e. at "Y#X" should be considerable as vandalism rather than standard wikipedia practice. CheeseDreams 21:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alleged user page vandalism

Thats not a diff solely involving me. I have no idea what the codes are for an ellipsis for example. And I was correcting a link after seperating a page into 2 articles. CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keenness to stop an edit war over the word Koan

Jesus has now been locked, and a sensible solution suggested by Andre-something, which I have accepted the principle of, but Yoshiah and company have rejected. CheeseDreams 08:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Inserting explanation of tags into articles so that Yoshiah was compelled to read them before insisting on his mass "on-principle" revert war

This was done as by that stage I was rather irritated by the completely-against-policy instant removal of NPOV tags from the articles. CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The comments in some of the above are just RfC not complaint

To call the addition of NPOV tags to certain lack-of-NPOV articles vandalism is part of a POV campaign by a group I seem to antagonise to personally attack me

Specifically, this list include IZAK, Sam Spade, John Garret, Wetman, Yoshiah ap, JDG, Slrubenstein, and Jayjg, who have already clashed with me on talk pages before, they stalk my edits, and could hardly be considered uncontroversial themselves. I have made over 2000 edits, on articles whose POV they treasured, my alteration of some of them to NPOV undoubtably would have irritated them.

Their comments are part of a campaign of vengence.

I would like their edits scruitinised. I note that many already have arbitration against them. If not all.

So-called attempts at reasoning

Comments left on my talk page by the protagonists above were more like an attempt at silencing me, than an attempt at compromise, or trying to understand my POV.CheeseDreams 08:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Llyrwch's comment is not about a general characteristic, but specifically with regard to JDG's antagonism on the Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and connected to my request to have him mediate a dispute about that specific page. CheeseDreams 08:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note: Exchanges during mediation are not intended as material in any other case, unless the parties involved agree to it. My intent was to ask CheeseDreams to moderate her behavior, in order to improve her position in this mediation; I am sorry that she misunderstood these words & my intent. -- llywrch 20:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Non-failure of mediation

Mediation only started within the last week, the mediator has been ill, and has not done much mediation. IT HAS NOT FAILED. IT IS STILL ONGOING It is bearing false witness and a lie to claim that this is the case.

ViP is actually a duplicate of this group of harrassers

The Vandalism in Progress report is infact merely a reiteration of some of the accusations above, made by exactly the same group of people.CheeseDreams 08:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is false. [79] if you will look at this you will see that I am the one who put you on Vandalism in Progress. I'm not part of any "group of harrassers". On the article in question, I believe that I have made no edits whatsoever. I'm not a sockpuppet: I'm within the top 700 editors, with respect to edit number. I frequently talk to you on your User talk page, and you have several times asked for my help or advice on my talk page. I'm certainly not your enemy. Your behaviour isyour enemy... and it's not too late to change. It's up to you: do you want to resolve these issues amicably or through controversy and dispute? It seems to me you picked a bunch of christians to bully around and expected them to turn the other cheek forever. This isn't an attack, either CheeseDreams, just advice from a friend.Pedant 15:34, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Actually, it is not false but true, you are referring to an entirely different VIP. See Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/11 (CheeseDreams controversy), and b.t.w. I'm in the top 700 editors too, Im already at 664, and it only took me 1.5 months to get there. CheeseDreams 18:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nasse/Piglet looks like a sock puppet

According to their remarkably recent edit history, this user seems to be a sock puppet. CheeseDreams 08:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

195.91.72.74/John johnson

This user (User:195.91.72.74) is new, and has every indication of being a sock puppet according to their edit history - this is almost the first thing they made comment on.CheeseDreams 00:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I stand by my claim of sock puppetry in this case. I find it remarkably obvious based on their edit history, and their ever-so-obvious attempt at poor editing style (e.g. improper signature, lower case initial letters, etc.). CheeseDreams 21:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The cabal isn't neutral

If you think the cabal are NPOV editors, view their contributions. CheeseDreams 00:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is what actually happened with the CfD

User:Aranel who counted up the tally stated

Overall, then, the results were 15% rename, 20% keep without renaming, and 65% delete. (Note: If I were to add my own vote, which would be delete, the total would be precisely 2/3, the generally accepted margin for rough consensus according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I have not done this

(my emphasis)

Since it failed to get the 2/3 (just) it survived CfD. CheeseDreams 23:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tara's Heresy

The heresy quote was in response to this offensive comment on my talk page by Lady Tara [80]:

You ... post heretical views

CheeseDreams 14:11, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Character witnesses for CheeseDreams

Anthony DiPierro

I'd just like to mention that I don't think that there is anything wrong with "adding {{cleanup}},{{NPOV}}, and {{cleanup}} tags to 50+ pages that he had never worked on". I've probably done this to over 100 pages. anthony 警告 19:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FT2

I only really know CheeseDreams ("CD") from the article Cultural and historical background of Jesus. In that article, CD has certainly edited in a manner that has caused some people to see him as an overzealous editor, as was said above. I think that's actually quite a fair comment. He also has escalated small molehills into mountains by over reacting rather than calmness, and assuming matters have been taken (or meant) as insults which were not actually so.

What bothers me is that taken item at a time, some of the "evidence" and some of CD's edits seem actually not at all unreasonable. Examples:

• Quite a few of his reverts have actually been to restore an article perhaps over zealously edited by others, rather than to impose his own version. Since radical edits when an article is still in dispute tend to lead to problems, it's hard to fault what has often been the an attempt to be constructive in the maintenance of a stable version against others who add large edits and/or themselves may break the reverts rules.
• Both sides ignored requests and polls in that article.
• Comments such as quoted, that some counter arguments are "pathetic", some early attempts "stupid" and some psalms "stupid" when you read them, are not personal attacks of any kind! A layperson not of any religion, reading a statement "heaven is held up from earth by 4 pillars" may well say "thats stupid". However, it could have been said more tactfully though (see above about "over reacting". Toning it down, gentling it, would help.
• Adding tags is not an invalid act to add a tag saying that "this article or section needs cleanup". Presumably it will not affect the article negatively. Adding comments on the talk pages would help if he didnt, but thats not going to make adding a "cleanup" tag vandalism. Maybe CD likes to help Wikipedia improve by highlighting potentially improvable articles for others. Some do.

As for more specific allegations I can't comment, not being familiar with those pages. Relaxing a little would help, but I think he is trying to do good, he has tried to support others quite often but when others argue he sometimes has over reacted back. "Chill all round guys!" :) FT2 23:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Sunborn

R.e. Jesus and koans.

each "side" of the dispute only gets 3 reverts. Both parites are in vialation of this "rule". I believe in the removal of the word koan from Jesus, true koans were not associated with "mainstream" Christianity, but some Gnostic writings exhibit koan-like sayings. Just my 0.02$. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 06:19, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine

I became familiar with CheeseDreams' work in early November. Although at times aggressive in efforts to neutralize perceived POV, I have noticed a very strong (one might even describe it as rigid) allegiance to Wikipedia principles and ethics by CheeseDreams. CheeseDreams has responded very well to reasoned discussion between peers, but has reacted negatively to condescending, threatening, or imperative voiced arguments - similar to my own reactions in fact.

While the revert war in Jesus was occurring, I was in #wikipedia with several admins and editors discussing the war as it progressed. I posted a warning to all feudants regarding the 3RR enforcement to the talk page between reverts 12 and 13 (iirc); at this time neither had addressed their issues re: Koan on the talk page. The general consensus at the time in the IRC was one of disbelief that a single word would be the cause of such dispute, and two separate editors noticed the use of BC/AD and modified it to BCE/CE - edits which were quickly reverted by the coalition opposing CheeseDreams.

It is very interesting to me that the "abusive language" cited above in actuality are not personal attacks, but insulting toward ideas or historical figures. In contrast, I have read considerable personal abuse directed toward CheeseDreams which is, in fact, personal attacks. "Incite" is certainly not an acceptable defense, and yet I would have to say in this case it should equally certainly be mentioned.

Since the entire issue developed from a spurious ViP, a false accusation which has not yet been retracted afik, it appears to me CheeseDreams is the victim in this case. Although CheeseDreams and I have our differences, especially as regards confrontation, in this particular case I do not see grounds for complaint beyond the actual revert war which was instigated and extended by a group of (I assume) colluding opponents (this apparent collusion, imo, is the most troubling element of this case.) - Amgine 01:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

duncharris

I'm going to stand up for the kid a too. I've only come across him in creationism/evolution articles. I don't condone all of his behaviour and am worried that he's been trolling a bit. He's quite similar to Sam Spade, and could be a lot more diplomatic. I am however concerned that there are elements within Wikipedia who are being subversive and attacking him because of his philosophical views. Dunc|☺ 12:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebroad

I don't know CheeseDreams very well, but I would say that I don't understand much of the evidence of the disputed behaviour.

• Regarding point 3, where is the evidence of personal attacks? I don't see the examples constituting this.
• Point 2, I see that CheeseDreams did indeed vote, so don't see the issue here.
• Point 4, what policies or guidelines have not been followed here?
• Point 5 requires a better link to show behavoir being claimed.
• Point 6, not obvious vandalism. What policies or guidelines are related to this behavior?
• Point 7, what policy does this breach? I'd like to know this for future reference!
• Point 8, this is clearly naughty behaviour. What is the policy for such one-off incidents?
• Point 9, same as point 7.

I am amazed this is still listed on RfAR considering the disputed behavior does not appear to have been established.

Regards, --Rebroad 19:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo

I don't know which section to write in, as I have had a wide range of experiences with CheeseDreams, but I think this spot is better. Cheese has made some valuable contributions to controversial articles that have improved their quality greatly. However, he has also escalated edit wars and often refuses to provide evidence for his edits. I think that both sides need to give one another a bit of slack -- Cheese should lay off/be more flexible when confronted about controversial changes, and the rest of us should be willing to read what he has written and save the good (of which there is a lot), rather than mindlessly reverting. The namecalling needs to stop on both sides as well. (Note, I've been out of town for a couple of weeks and haven't looked at the most recent state of affairs.) Mpolo 20:32, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

It appears that CheeseDreams's confrontationalism has escalated somewhat in the last two weeks. I just saw where she was accusing [User:Wesley] of a POV crusade (He has in fact been chased away from at least one other article by the Slrubenstein-CheeseDreams war) because he pointed out a flaw in her rewrite of [Historicity of Jesus]. I'm still here in the "character witnesses" section, but I am wavering close to moving into the "supporting the summary" section. But for now, I'll trust that she has been having a bad day... Mpolo 20:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

The sentence of mine in question is "that sentence seems POV because ....", I really don't see how that can be construed as "you are acting out a POV crusade". Please explain. CheeseDreams 19:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Final Request By CheeseDreams

I would like a judgement on my accusers on the issue of harrasment. CheeseDreams 00:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

evidence of my accusers operating a cabal

for example, the following was on JdWolf's talk page

Since you seem to be involved, would you be interested in signing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 23:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never met JdWolf before, so fail to see how he was involved.

Soliciting enmity from GRider-

Hello. CheeseDreams has made a particularly odd comment at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christology; would you be interested in signing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 10:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have never met GRider before

From Jmabel's talk page

Since you seem to be involved, would you be interested in signing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 23:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never met Jmabel before

From Aranel's talk page

Since you seem to be involved, would you be interested in signing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 23:19, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never met Aranel before

From El_C's talk page

I'd appreciate your help. Cultural and historical background of Jesus This page was recently unprotected. FT2 revised it, then I revised it considerably, mostly adding information. CheeseDreams just reverted it and threatens to revert any work I do. Please compare my version to the previous one (FT2) and comment. Thanks Slrubenstein

(The text by FT2 was specifically meant to be discussed for 2 days, rather than overwritten, so as to avoid restarting an edit war. Slrubenstein overwrote it). CheeseDreams 19:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From 172's talk page

Hey, I'd really appreciate it if you would review and comment the discussion on Cultural and Historical Context of Jesus. Even if this field is not something you are expert in, I value your sensibilities as an historian, It is a very long discussion, I'd be glad if you would just review and comment on the section on "new messiah" and the subsequent sections/discussions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From John Kenney's talk page

I am engaged in an argument with CheeseDream on this talk page. I have just accused him off a personal attack and I suspect racism. I am not sure whether this is a banable offense. I am concerned too that I am making too much of something. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the relevant material and give me your take -- tell me if you think I am misreading the situation or responding to it inappropriately. Please look at this article's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Saducees_vs._Pharisees and look at the section on "Saducees vs. Pharisees" and "CheeseDream Verges on racism" to get the salient facts. Thanks, Slrubenstein

and

John, I'd really appreciate it if you would review and comment the discussion on Cultural and Historical Context of Jesus. Even if this field is not something you are expert in, I value your sensibilities as an historian, It is a very long discussion, I'd be glad if you would just review and comment on the section on "new messiah" and the subsequent sections/discussions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Andy L's talk page

I am engaged in an argument with CheeseDream on this talk page. I have just accused him off a personal attack and I suspect racism. I am not sure whether this is a banable offense. I am concerned too that I am making too much of something. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the relevant material and give me your take -- tell me if you think I am misreading the situation or responding to it inappropriately. Please look at this article's talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Saducees_vs._Pharisees and look at the section on "Saducees vs. Pharisees" and "CheeseDream Verges on racism" to get the salient facts. Thanks, Slrubenstein

From Jayjg's talk page

I have made my own proposal for the "new messiah" section, and would appreciate your comments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#New_Messiah_paragraph -- thanksSlrubenstein

In consequence of the above, I have since 2 days hence, solicited comment from users who have met the above and disputed their behaviour.

Childish behaviour of my accusers

Petty complaints

Re. Homoeroticism quote.

I do not consider jealousy due to their lack of wit as justifiable complaint against me. CheeseDreams 19:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We are all laughing so hard. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:39, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Childish derogarory monologue

Re. being a sock puppet

You're kiddin', right, honey? YOU ARE GOING DOWN! *ROFLMFAO* Piglet 01:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A quote from this page

Hahahahaha! This is a WAR you can NOT win, CheesyCake! Piglet 21:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From this page's talk page

You wish, cheesy! But this is YOUR "party", remember? Be a grown-up, apologize for your stupid comments and rack off! Piglet 01:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Using sockpuppets to derogatorially vandalise my User page

See [81], [82] (warning - this is an extremely large (but rather repetative) edit of over 1MB in length - some browsers, and computers, may have significant problems viewing it), and [83].

Some of which is anti-semitic and homophobic (and rather inappropriate as I'm a straight white female non-Jew). Note that the editor of the 1st two instances of vandalism also vandalised other pages, such as making this edit

Not that its a "dead giveaway", but, the only person to refer to me as "CheeseCake" (see the first link) has been Piglet .The 3rd vandalism refers to the same derogatory comment as the first, allowing the two users to be equated. CheeseDreams 19:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Desire to commit Prejudice

A quote from this page

Kindly sign your comments with the ~~~~ so we can know who is saying things, and if they are worthy of comment. Thank you. IZAK 04:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-I fail to see how knowing who made a comment determines whether it is worthy or notCheeseDreams 19:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Forgery by Rienzo of "Childish behaviour of my CheeseDreams"

A quote:

Rienzo! Go fuck yourself!

CheeseDreams 19:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is so mature! Rienzo 11:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The above comment was 100% forged here is the diff [84]

As you will also note, it does not appear on my contributions list - the time in question is covered by this link [85].

For the above forgery, I have asked that punitive action be taken.

Further, please note that I am from the UK and that usage does not exist in UK slang. Essentially in the UK you can't state "<verb> <verb>" it has to be "<verb> and <verb>" or "<verb> n <verb>". So if you are going to forge something please learn to do it properly. CheeseDreams 15:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My accusers seek to abuse wikipedia VfD policy

See this diff [86]

Uh, you shouldn't have listed them for VfD in the first place. This is a totally unwarranted accusation. Care to tell me where I violated policy? Please give exactly wikilink. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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}

There are two sides to NPOV

The volume of articles and edits related to this RfC is beyond careful scrutiny by uninvolved editors because of time and patience involved, so only some observations about contents of this RfC will be made:

• There are clearly many editors opposed to CheeseDreams. That, however, proves nothing in regards to the main objective of Wikipedia articles: Neutral Point of View. So, the arguments above "everyone this or that, except for CheeseDreams" are both irrelevant and a fallacy.
• There is a number of complaints against CheeseDreams above that can be fairly characterized as petty at best. This suggests that needless "ganging up" and "piling on" is taking place here.
• Some complaints appear to be entirely made up, such as the preceding comment by Rienzo; no post by CheeseDreams is shown in contribs at that time.
• Some complaints about CheeseDreams' personal remarks appear valid at first blush, but context of several of those remarks shows provocations and unpleasant remarks by the other side.

In short, it appears that many complaints in this RfC do not provide a balanced look at the issues involved. Thus the preliminary verdict of this uninvolved editor is:

• CheeseDreams should tone down the heated remarks and avoid remarks of personal nature as they are apparently not well received or understood.
• The complaining editors should assume good faith, avoid provoking, and now intensifying the conflict, and seek a more amicable approach to achieve their objectives. CheeseDreams appears to have made useful contributions; this calls for other editors to check whether it is the opposition to their POV or something else that is the underlying cause of disputes.
• As CheeseDreams is apparently greatly outnumbered in this case, it would be only fair for the complaining editors to doublecheck their complaints and remove invalid or minor ones.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. HistoryBuffEr 04:19, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC).
2. Dr Zen 04:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. Lady Tara 09:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. comment: I especially support the urge that CD's accusers get their act together and only voice major concerns. User:Nasse's childish taunting is not helpful. Eequor seems pretty much on a crusade. That said, imho CheeseDreams has caused enough grief for her to be banned from editing Jesus-related articles for a couple of months. [[User:Dbachmann|dab (T) ]] 11:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   (Amusing isn't it, I especially liked the bit where Rienzo forged evidence)CheeseDreams 21:35, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

#Ta bu shi da yu 12:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) I certify, but I am pretty unhappy about what CheeseDreams did to the Historicity of Jesus page. It was unreadable for quite some time after it got locked. You don't just slap a new article on the top of the old one and make a heading "Old article starts here". - Ta bu shi da yu 12:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. I decertify this. She is a destructive force on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)