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: 07:36, 1 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

(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]
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]

Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/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 [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)

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].

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)

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]
13. House of Joseph: "it already has a stub notice, it doesn't need two" User:Jayjg" [42]
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" [43]
15. Job (person): "No disputes on Talk: page. Also, one stub entry is plenty, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [44]
16. John the Baptist: "Reverted edits by CheeseDreams to last version by Amgine User:Theresa knott" [45]
17. Jonah: "One stub notice is plently, don't need two User:Jayjg" [46]
18. Mordechai: "this is not relevant to the WP:CFD debate" User:Jfdwolff [47]
19. Noah: "- unneeded dispute headers User:Sam Spade" [48]
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" [49]
21. Sodom and Gomorrah: "- dispute headers, not helpful here User:Sam Spade" [50]
22. Solomon: "not convinced of any need to have a cleanup (if you disagree - please copyedit the article yourself) User:Jongarrettuk" [51]
23. Solomon's Temple: "this article is not a stub, and there is no dispute on the Talk: page" User:Jayjg" [52]
24. Susanna: "No dispute on Talk: page. Also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" [53]
25. Ten Commandments: "rv, see talk User:Yoshiah ap" [54]
26. The Last Supper: "No disputes on Talk: page. Also two stub notices are not required, one is enough User:Jayjg" [55]
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" [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]
28. Zacchaeus: "No disputes on Talk: page; also, one stub notice is enough, doesn't need two User:Jayjg" c[58]
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)

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

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)
• 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)
• 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 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)

Comments placed incorrectly in the section that may only be edited by those defending CheeseDreams

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

john johnson--not a sock puppet

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

A list of POV groupies who want vengence for adjusting articles to NPOV

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, Johngarret (jguk), none of whom are uncontroversial editors, and many of whom are aggressive editors, a remarkable amount of whom have been, or are currently in Arbitration. CheeseDreams 08:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Character witnesses for CheeseDreams

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$. --[[User:Sunborn|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)

Final Request By CheeseDreams

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

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