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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC).

Abuse of this page

One of the users who is an active party in this dispute - User:Yoshiah ap

abused this page, refactoring my comments and physically moving them out of context, and putting POV references above them CheeseDreams 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

in addition, I would like to point out to that user that this is RfC not arbitrationCheeseDreams 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a right to respond to each comment and do so inline.CheeseDreams 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would like a formal reprimand made against said user for such serious abuse of this page CheeseDreams 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In repairing this vandalism, and POV abuse, I have tried to refactor in comments made in the intervening period. I apologise if I have put them in the wrong location, or have missed any out. CheeseDreams 19:02, 29 Nov 2004 (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

(provide diffs and links)

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]

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)

1. 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

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)

1. User:CheeseDreams frequently uses personal attacks:
   1. "point out the patheticness of the counter argument" [8]

This is me commenting on an article written only by me. If it is a personal attack, it was only to myself.CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. 1. "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself" [9]

Again, this is me commenting on an article written only by me. If it is a personal attack, it was only to myself.CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. 1. "The psalms also say that heaven is held up from the earth by 4 pillars in the sea, amongst other stupidities" [10]

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)

1. 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]

The above 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. CheeseDreams

1. Redirected links to Sol Invictus to reflect sen POV despite opposition on talk pages: [19]

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)

1. Interfered with attempts to restore the original version of Elagabalus Sol Invictus and move it back to Sol Invictus: [20] [21] [22]

Yes, because the "restoration" was vandalism. Completely ignoring the reasoning behind the change, and doing so immediately without regard to any justification. In addition, the above user 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 the above user on-sight, and announced as such in the edit history. I regard that behaviour as vandalism. CheeseDreams 08:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Redirected links to Christology and subsequently listed it on VfD, a move for which there is no support

Untrue, 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)

1. User talk page vandalism: [23]

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)

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/CheeseDreams controversy

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

Jesus (article)

• 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. CheeseDreams 17:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • 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)

I request enforcement of the 3 revert rule against the people who clocked up the 9 reverts trying to insert it back in. CheeseDreams 20:42, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is what you call hypocrisy, folks. 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)

No, 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)

I believe this situation is usually called Impasse, and suggest the article be locked. CheeseDreams 20:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which has now been done, 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)

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

Thats not vandalism. Mithras Sol Invictus isn't the same as Elagabalus Sol Invictus, and nor are these the same as any other Sol Invictus. -- CheeseDreams 16:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Very long vandalism spree. Some kind of ban seems in order. -- Eequor 01:26 28 November, 2004 UTC

How is redirecting pages linking to pages, that are merged or moved into disambiguation pages and new articles, to the new location of the content, considerable as a vandalism spree?

On the contrary, blanket reverting them without even considering why it was done is vandalism.

The link above = the "very long" series of edits, was fix the link for a single article that happened to be referenced in a lot of places. -- CheeseDreams 16:57, 28 Nov 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)

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but the link you provide refers to my contributions list rather than yours CheeseDreams 16:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you mind not editing others' comments? CheeseDreams has already provided ample reason to be suspicious. For example, see [24], which led to [25] 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 [26] 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)

So do I get an apology?CheeseDreams 16:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No apology has been forthcoming yet.CheeseDreams 08:34, 29 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" [27] and "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself" [28].

If anyone cared to ACTUALLY LOOK at the edit history of Jesus and syncretism, you will find that, in the current state, I wrote ALL of it. If the comment was a personal attack, it could only have been to myself. CheeseDreams 18:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that DESPITE the fact it was a new article, and despite the fact that I was the ONLY editor of it, Yosiah ap reverted the final version to an earlier messy version of it, without explanation or sense. This I would personally consider to be mindless vandalism. Do you think I ask about him on RfC? CheeseDreams 18:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

Koans are not only used in Zen Buddhism, just because they are dominant there, and the word derives from there, does not mean they have exclusive use of it. See the relevant talk page. In addition, it is actually User:Yoshiah ap who mande the first move, as the word had been in the article for many weeks, Yoshiah ap removed it, and I merely reverted the article back.

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)

I went around relevant articles adding a catagory, whilst there, I noted that articles were not written in NPOV style, they assumed a literalist POV (Biblical POV) and did not present other arguments, therefore adding an NPOV tag was appropriate. NPOV tags are meant to remain on articles for at least 5 days, until it is clear that there is no dissent. I consider it vandalism to have removed them. CheeseDreams 18:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

1. it isn't a requirement
2. you didn't even give me 30 minutes to make a start

CheeseDreams 18:34, 28 Nov 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.

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

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)

In fact their first edit was to the talk page for a temp page - Historicity of Jesus/New version, which is unlikely for a new user, as the page is unlikely to be the first one you just happen to stumble upon, and feel you ought to comment. CheeseDreams 00:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)

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" [29] 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" [30]
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" [31]
3. Book of Daniel: "Please explain POV or style problems when adding NPOV and cleanup tags User:Rhobite" [32]
4. Book of Job: "Please explain NPOV, cleanup, and expansion tags User:Rhobite" [33]
5. Cain and Abel: "Please explain cleanup tag User:Rhobite" [34]
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" [35]
7. Daniel: "No disputes in Talk: page; this article is not a stub User:Jayjg" [36]
8. Deborah: "no debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, one is enough User:Jayjg" [37]
9. Delilah: No debates in Talk: page; doesn't need two stub notices, on is enough User:Jayjg" [38]
10. Elijah: "this article is not a stub, and Cheesedreams did not his his NPOV objections. Hence removing those labels. User:Robert Merkel" [39]
11. Elisha: "There are no disputes on the Talk: page, and you don't need two stub notices user:Jayjg" [40]
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." [41]

Because 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)

1. House of Joseph: "it already has a stub notice, it doesn't need two" User:Jayjg" [42]
2. 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" [43]
3. Job (person): "No disputes on Talk: page. Also, one stub entry is plenty, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [44]
4. John the Baptist: "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Amgine User:Theresa knott" [45]
5. Jonah: "One stub notice is plently, don't need two User:Jayjg" [46]
6. Mordechai: "this is not relevant to the WP:CFD debate" User:Jfdwolff [47]
7. Noah: "- unneeded dispute headers User:Sam Spade" [48]
8. 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" [49]
9. Sodom and Gomorrah: "- dispute headers, not helpful here User:Sam Spade" [50]
10. Solomon: "not convinced of any need to have a cleanup (if you disagree - please copyedit the article yourself) User:Jongarrettuk" [51]
11. Solomon's Temple: "this article is not a stub, and there is no dispute on the Talk: page" User:Jayjg" [52]
12. Susanna: "No dispute on Talk: page. Also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [53]
13. Ten Commandments: "rv, see talk User:Yoshiah ap" [54]
14. The Last Supper: "No disputes on Talk: page. Also two stub notices are not required, one is enough User:Jayjg" [55]
15. 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" [56] "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" [57]

How is that a formal complaint? Its a request for comment.

1. Zacchaeus: "No disputes on Talk: page; also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" c[58]
2. Piglet 17:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism, to call it vandalism is part of a POV campaign by a group I seem to antagonise to personally attack me

Re. The above. IZAK, Sam Spade, John Garret, Wetman, Yoshiah ap, and Jayjg, 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.

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Three_revert_rule 3RR

That was more like an attempt at silencing me, than an attempt at compromise.CheeseDreams 08:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Abusive_Language Abusive Language
2. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Please Abusive Language

This one is EXPLICITELY with regard to JDG's antagonism on the Talk:Cultural and historical background of JesusCheeseDreams 08:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Please_don.27t_misuse_article_tags... Tags

That is from the protagonists above. And again, it is more an instance of them trying to enforce their opinion than actually attempting to understand, or try to resolve the dispute

1. User_talk:CheeseDreams#Your_expansion.2C_clean-up_and_NPOV_template_additions Tags

That is from the protagonists above. And again, it is more an instance of them trying to enforce their opinion than actually attempting to understand, or try to resolve the dispute

1. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 12#Users CheeseDreams, SIrubenstein and Amgine Mediation request - CheeseDreams, Slrubenstein and Amgine

Mediation has not failed. It is still ongoing. This should NOT be in this section. CheeseDreams 08:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Talk:Jesus#Koans_-_Poll Koans - Revert War
2. Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/CheeseDreams controversy

That is a copy of the above "evidence" CheeseDreams 08:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. --Josiah 04:00, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
2. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 03:40, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

• Since User:CheeseDreams "arrived" at Wikipedia about ONE month ago on 29 Oct `04 [59] 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 [60] , 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)

Bizarre? Uncivil? OH, YES! Piglet 09:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• User:CheeseDreams seems to be a troll and should be banned immediately! Piglet 07:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I have commented elsewhere, this user seems to be a sock puppet. CheeseDreams 08:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice try, kid! This is YOUR trial! Piglet 09:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is RfC. It is not a trial. If you are going to abuse it as if it is, then you will find arbitration against yourself. CheeseDreams 19:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

YOU ARE GOING DOWN, Cheesy! Piglet 19:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• john k 07:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can give a full list of all the POV editors who will be here. They include Slrubenstein, Sam Spade, Jayjg, JDG, Yoshiah ap, Wetman, none of whom are uncontroversial editors, and many of whom are aggressive editors. CheeseDreams 08:41, 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)