Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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]


[edit] 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].