Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28

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)

CheeseDreams

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 [[Special:Contributions/CheeseDreams | 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)


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 [1], which led to [2] 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 [3] 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|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 04:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So do I get an apology?CheeseDreams 16:57, 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" [4] and "the stupidity of early christian attempts to explain it away speaks for itself" [5].

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)

November 17

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2004/11_(CheeseDreams_controversy)&oldid=1247917023"