User talk:OceanSplash

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 read your message 2 My rvs of your edits to Islamofascism 3 Ali Sina, SIIEG membership, and your concerns 4 Block 5 I applaud you 6 Anti-Islam campaign 7 Hi Michael 8 so are you also ? 9 Hello 10 Just a small correction to your userpage 11 One component at a time 12 Page protection issues 13 Slim Virgin 14 No personal attacks 15 blocked 16 sockpuppetry 17 Please Visit "List of Political Epithets" and "Useful Idiot" 18 Babajobu nomination 19 As per your request 20 Thanks, and more 21 blocked 22 Clarification 23 new category for Wikipedians 24 Please... 25 Vote Needed 26 Barnstar 27 Brainstar 28 Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf 29 List of Islamic Scholars

[edit] read your message

There is no questions that some editors do indeed play unfair by resorting to all sorts of devious tactics. Do not despair , you are certainly not the first editor to encounter the tactics that you mention. And there are many impartial and smart editors and admins in wikipedia that can all help make some progress in the resolution of disputes. Also if you follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to the letter you can usually get your inserts to hold and you can insist that they do by having wikipedia to back you up, of course there are always the vandals... Based on what you say though, you ought to read any of these books to get a deeper understanding of the nature of the beast and what you are up against. --CltFn 02:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your observations. But also try to remember that your own contributions also carry weight and even though you can sometimes be outnumbered in revert wars, if you insert information that is sourced and irrefutable , there will be other wikipedians that will back you up. Also I think that when you are the new kid on the block some editors feel they can push you around a bit. This is especially true for anomymous editors who get very little respect from what I can see. That tends to go away after you've been around for a while and are more well established.

On a cheerful note , most wikipedian editors that I have seen in Wikipedia that start out as pretty partisan gradually seem to develop more critical thinking which in my book is not a bad thing. And who knows where a little critical thinking will lead them? Surely to a better place than their prior folly--CltFn 05:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My rvs of your edits to Islamofascism

I put a note at the talk page about the 2 reverts I did on your editing. Please spend some time becoming familiar with what is acceptable content at that page: it's taken a long time to reach consensus. --- Charles Stewart 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina, SIIEG membership, and your concerns

Left note for you on my talkpage. Babajobu 20:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for repeatedly ignoring warnings to stop bring people's personal lives into arguments and also getting it wrong does not help. That type of behavior is disruptive. gren グレン 04:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And what else could we expect from you? A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. You dropped your mask too soon. This is further evidence to my claim that you are not fit to be an editor of Wilipedia let alone an administrator. Can you justify this action? Of course you can’t. I exposed you. You are embarassed. Your ego is hurt. And the only way you know how to deal with it is by using force. Force, violence, terror! What else is new? Let us drop this PC game and call a spade a spade. You give power to a Muslim: he will abuse it. Here is the proof. And did you expect me to accept you as a fair mediator? You certainly undermine people’s intelligence. You demostrated to be a weak man. First you pose as a mediator when you are an interested party. That is unethical to say the least. Then when I expose your little deception, instead of showing nobility and stepping aside you use the only weapon in our disposal and ban me.

“That type of behavior is disruptive” How did you expect me to respond to your deception? Dis you expenct compliance? I immediately saw your trick and protested, which you did not like. Why did you self appoint yourself as the mediator in a matter concerning Islam when you are a a Muslim yourslef? How can you be fair in matters so close to your heart? Who did you want to fool? So your "highness", is entitled to break all ethical norms of civility and assume responsibilities where there are conflicts of interests and no one is allowed even to protest? What is the name of this polity? Is this not dictatorship? This sounds very much like rulers who abuse their powers and when people protest they punish them accusing them of “disruptive behaviour”. So, you don’t think there is anything wrong in your unethical conduct but if the victims of your abuses protest, that is disruptive. I wonder where did you learn this self serving "justice"? You have a very twisted sense of ethics. I am afraid you did a lot of harm to your credibility Mister. OceanSplash 14 Dec. 2005 6:09

I did expect compliance. I asked you to keep faith out of the discussions and to stop making accusations based on faith on user pages. You did not stop and you continue to do this. I would enjoy talking about this subject with you. In fact, please drop by my user page and ask me what religion I am. We can discuss it for a while if you'd like and I can learn about your beliefs and you can learn about mine. This will be done on user talk pages, not on article talk pages which are meant for discussing articles. Saying things like, "give power to a Muslim: he will abuse it" is completely unnacceptable. It is an attack on all Muslim users such as AnonymousEditor, BYT, Striver, Farhanser, etc. Do not make assumptions about the beliefs of others and tell others what the believe. You said: "He writes: “There's no point in debating Sina. He should be killed.” This is the Muslim approach to those who criticise Islam." When you do that you are accusing all Muslims who edit here of being murderous. That is not acceptable. So, come by my talk page and we can have a chat about our religious beliefs if you wish. However, most importantly start acting in a civil manner on article talk pages. gren グレン 10:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why should I discuss anything with you when I know you will ban me even indefinitely anytime logic fails you? You acted dictatorially and that is okay in your book. But protesting against your abuses is "disruptive behaviour". This is your brand of justice not mine.

To know the real Islam all one has to do is to listen to a sermon in a Mosque. See this I was exposed to all these hate speeches for five years. Muslims are thought it is pious to hate others. Is this not what Islam teaches? Aren’t these verses from the Quran? As a Muslim don’t you believe in the Quran? So what do you say about these verses? I am done with you. There is no point in debating you. You are prone to abuse your power and ban people with whom you disagree. This is dictatorship not civility. Good bye. OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 07:31

Could you please move your complaint to Jimmy Wales about me from Talk:Jimmy Wales to User talk:Jimbo Wales. If you are trying to address the man that is the correct place. It is completely irrelevant on his article. Thanks. gren グレン 07:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I applaud you

Good job fighting these muslims who would lie to the end of the earth about their own religion and their own political agendas. I personally have been rv'd for simply putting a npov tag on pages dealing with Islam. Wikipedia is good for things like looking up Julius Caesars life, but dealing with any geopolitical articles you need to be careful because the liars are all around.--Absent 13:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why Absent is banned indefinately? Is he being punished for speaking against Muslims' abuse of power in Wikipedia? OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 07:31

That is exactly what happened. Unfortunate but true. It was labeled "hate-speech".--Nosharia 23:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Islam campaign

I suggest you re-consider your campaign against Islam. That sort of thing is not accepted around here. Attacking people for their religion tends to result in the attacker being banned.

-- Carnildo, who, for the record, is an agnostic with Discordian leanings.

Islam is not a religion. It is a political movement that is bent to take over the world and religion is only a mask. Would you also try to ban the person who campaigns against KKK? Ideologically, there is no difference between Islam and KKK. Facts must be stated. As far as I know Wikipedia prides itself to be an impartial encyclopaedia. This means the views of ex-Muslims must also be heard. We are humans and victims of Islam and we have the right to speak out even if what we say is not to your liking. Unlike Muslims, we ex-Muslims are not calling for violence. We are not inciting hate like they do. All we want is a chance to say our side of the story so others do not fall into a trap with lies. We are the victims of Islam. Why should we shut up? OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 08:29

I would ban someone who campaigns against editors who are KKK members because they are KKK members, or someone who campaigns against editors who are pedophiles because they are pedophiles, or any other person who campaigns against a group of editors simply because they are members of that group.

What matters on Wikipedia is what individual editors do as editors, not what groups they are members of. --Carnildo 10:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My campaign is not against Muslims but Islam. Would you ban one who writes about the dangers of racism or pedophilia? An unbiased encyclopaedia must provide podium for everyone to express their views without fear and make their side of the story known. Only then it would be neutral. Why the victims of Islam should be voiceless? Do you deny our human rights? Do you deny our right to tell the world what happened to us, how we were deceived, and the evil that we encountered? Would you silence a victim of pedophilia to speak against pedophilia because this might offend the pedophile? Would you ban a black if he writes against racism because some editors of Wikipedia might be KKK members and this might offend them? I don’t understand your rationale! Will you tell me why as a victim of Islam I should be silenced? What kind of world is this world of yours that abusers can speak freely and promote their abusive cause but their victims are not allowed to speak because the abusers might be offended? So according to your ethos, it is okay for the pedophiles to promote pedophilia but it is NOT okay to write against pedophilia because this might turn some people against the pedophiles. Thanks! But no thanks! That is not my kind of world. In my ideal world, if the pedophiles have the right to speak, so should their victims. Don't you think this is how it should be? OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 10:42

I can see how passionate and sincere you are in your views. However, they have no place in Wikipedia -- we only report as fact things which are generally considered as true without controversy; where controversy exists, we report on other people's attributed and verifiable statements, not our own. Please read WP:NPOV. If you wish to know why people are reacting as they are to your opinions, try replacing the word "Islam" in them with "Christianity" or "Hinduism" or "atheism", and think about what they would sound like to you. -- The Anome 13:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam is in no way comparable to Christianity, Hinduism or Buddhism. Do you find anywhere the sacred books of these religions telling their believers to “cast terror in the hearts of those who do not believe, smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them?" 8:12, or that “they are the worst of the creatures? 98:6 or “slay them wherever ye find them” 9:5? You are comparing apples to oranges. Here is the trap. The reason I became interested in Islam was because I could not find the truth about Islam anywhere. Now I know why. It was because do-gooders like you did everything possible to hide it from me. This is not a criticism of you. As a leftist and a multiculturalist I did the same. I stood behind every minority and exotic culture and defended them until I myself fell into that trap and when I woke up I realized I lost a great part of my life and worse than anything else I hade become a hatemongering person. Once I accepted Islam as a true religion, then there was no escape for me. They introduced hateful verses of the Quran such as Jews are monkeys 7:166 or the unbelievers are impure 9:28 or many other verses such as these and I had no choice but to accept because it was the word of God. Once you become a Muslim, you are trapped. There is psychological and peer pressure to agree with everything the Quran teaches and the Quran contains hundreds of very hateful and violent teachings which you take in one at a time until you become completely poisoned and a hatemonger. The more you express your disdain of the people of other religions the more approval you get, and if you show friendliness towards them you are immediately corrected. You will be reminded that you are not supposed to take non-Muslims who are seen as “the enemies” as your friends offering them your love. 60:1. Please read this sermon. read all of it and then tell me whether you still disagree with me. All I want to do is to make sure this other side of Islam is also told. Stopping me from doing that is not only violation of the first amendment and abuse of my freedom of speech; it is also promoting half truths. Violence is one important part of the Quran. When writing an unbiased encyclopaedia one must not take into consideration the sensitivities of people. Think you are writing about the culture and beliefs of a people who is extinct. Would you be still shackled by political correctness? There are people who deny the holocaust. Should we avoid any mention of holocaust because these people are adamantly against any mention of it and are offended by it? We should not let political correctness stop us from stating the truth. You can’t be neutral if you censor half of the truth and only present the part that does not hurt the sensitivities of a certain group. We are writing an encyclopaedia not a kindergarten book. Sometimes truth is painful. If you start giving more importance to sensitivities than facts, then we must not talk about a lot of things. Writing about the excesses of the crusaders or the inquisition may offend some Christians. Talking about the holocaust my offend the neo-Nazists, talking about the occupation of Tibet may offend some Chinese, talking about the human rights violations of the prisoners of conscience in Iran may offend the ruling regime. Talking about evolution, may offend the creationists. Heck, talking about the Earth being spherical may offend the members of the Flat Earth Society. Where do you draw the line? An encyclopaedia is not to pamper the sensitivities of people but to be factual, unbiased and truthful. Don’t you agree with me? OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 18:18

"We only report as fact things which are generally considered as true without controversy;" (The Anome)

This policy is a mistake. Nearly every subject of human interest is controversial. You can be controversial even about which cuisine is tastier. We humans have different points of views and it is inevitable that theses POVs collide and cause controversy. How do you decide which side to report and which side not to? Would you just take the side of the majority and censor the views of the minority? Shouldn’t an unbiased and impartial encyclopedia report faithfully the views of all sides? If there are ten views to an argument, we must report all of them. It is wrong to censor one POV because it may offend those who hold opposing POVs. This amounts to censorship which inevitably leads to dictatorship. OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 19:12

Here are some uncontroversial statements that almost all people can agree on, and we report as fact: 2+2 = 4. The figure of the Earth is to first order an oblate spheroid. The commonest element in the observable universe is hydrogen. China is the most populous country in the world. Edward the Confessor died in 1066. Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux kernel. George Bush is the current President of the United States. The triple point of water is 273.16 K.

On the other hand, here are some controversial statements that many people consider to be true, but a significant number disagree with, that we report as opinions: Global warming is real, and caused by human generation of greenhouse gases. Fascism was a right-wing political movement. UFOs are not real. There was a man called Jesus of Nazareth. Mental illness is a real physical condition, not a social construct. Alan Turing committed suicide.

Can you spot the difference? -- The Anome 00:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

A comment: 2+2 does not equal 4 in George Orwell's 1984, Flat Earthers don't really believe that the earth is an oblate spheroid and Ken Brown from AdTI doesn't believe that Torvalds created Linux. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don’t know what is it that you want to say. Maybe you have to reword it. Things that everybody agrees like 2+2 = 4, etc, you just say the one version. On subjects that are controversial, both views must be mentioned. For example if the majority say UFOs are not real, the views of the minority claiming that they are, must also be mentioned. There are lots of things that are fairytales such as the mythological deities of the ancient people. But they are covered in detail in all encyclopedias and the archelogists try to find more about them. This is called knowledge. We know they are false but we cover them.

The problem with editing pages on Islam here is that opposing views are not allowed. For example, Muslims can quote verses of the Quran in support of their claim that in Islam slaves should be treated fairly. But if you quote verses where it encourages raiding and taking people as slaves, those verses are immediately removed. It is very clear that the Muslims here want to misrepresent Islam. They get away with it because they form “gangs” and they are militant. They also get away because they cry victim and do gooders like you immediately come to their protection. So eithir through violence or winning the support of the do gooders and the politically correct they win and their victims are further victimized, not only by them but also by good people who are tricked and misplace their loyalty on them. They want to impose their half truths with force. Are you condoning these unethical actions? In my above postings I raised many points. Do you disagree with them? For example do you agree that it is unethical for a person to volunteer as mediator where the conflict of interest is flagrant? Can someone be an unbaised mediator between a stranger and his son, for example? Muslims love Islam more than their lives. How can they be impartial. I would like you to answer to this questio, becuase based on this I can evaluate your level of conscionce and see whether there is any worth to continue this conversation. OceanSplash 16 Dec. 2005 00:44

[edit] Hi Michael

Hi Michael: I want to invite you to join us at SIIEG and take active part in making sure Wikipedia remains neutral. I am specifically referring to Muslims who unfortunately seem to be more committed to their religion than to facts and this encyclopedia. They often use unethical conduct to have their opinion prevail and opposing views on Islam censored. ...[...explicit hate speech...] We must stop this lie and save innocent people like me and thousands others from becoming victims. Some people have become suicide bombers after conversion. ... You must make it your business to take stance. So please join and become part of our project. OceanSplash 14 Dec. 2005 03:54

WHAT IS THAT ABOUT?

You will IMMEDIATELY learn about WP:NPOV. You will also immediately read WP:NPA. --Victim of signature fascism vote for the arb com 17:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree that NPOV is important here, but personal attack? Whick individual is he attacking? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] so are you also ?

finding it hard to work in a web site controlled by an an Islamic gang ? Zeq 18:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Zek Please join SIIEG and promote it among all those who have become victims of Islamic bullies in Wikipedia and all those who value NPOV above political correctness. Muslims aim is to take over this encycopedia and use it as another tool of propaganda. We should not let them. Wikipedia is an important encyclopedia and must remain impartial as intended by its founder. It is foolish to assume believers of any faith will be able to remain impartial and fair in matters concernign their faith. This level of PC is foolishness. It belies total ignorance of human nature and the impact of faith on human psyche. OceanSplash 15:Dec. 2005, 18:55

Why I did not join ? because editing articles about Islam does not concern me. Very little I can contribute, although I will try. But I did noticed how muslim editors and their supporters are turning Wikipedia to a hotbed of Palestinian propeganda. Zeq 20:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedai mechanism have failed and it will be gaian subject of negative press soon - unless they will try to fix it. see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_serious_suggestion_to_Mr._Wales Zeq 20:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I'm interested in hearing what happened. I'm an adminstrator. Perhaps you could tell me what you were trying to add, and I can give you some suggestions? Wikipedia can be a pretty difficult place to edit, especially in articles that are controversial or that people have strong opinions about. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a small correction to your userpage

We're not all Muslim, who disagree with you, or have a significant lack of respect for what you try to peddle on Wiki - I'm a white Christian who has taught Sunday School for years. You can feel free to add that to your userpage to be accurate and honest, that way you can avoid being like those Muslims, who I believe you classed as Muslims lie. This is what Islam teaches them to do earlier today. Now don't you want to be better than what you claim to hate? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One component at a time

It is normal to be suspicious of all things new. That includes also new people a.k.a “strangers”. Newcomers are viewed with suspicion. They often face a wall of resistance and occasionally hostility, especially if they have maverick views. I can’t do much to overcome this natural phenomenon. You can’t help it also. This is human nature. But maybe being aware of it will help us resist it. Prejudice means judging a priori. We often fall into that trap even innocently. For example, you see rabid people attack those who are different. Often these attacks take racial, cultural, class, caste, or religious forms. All these are nurtured by hate. So if you see someone criticizing the faith of someone else, you immediately pigeon hole him as a hate monger and racist. I belonged to that class of people myself. I was, and still am, a fervent multiculturalist and strongly opposed those who uttered a word of criticism of people of other cultures, nationalities, races or religions. I was so staunch in my conviction that I even embraced Islam. So I am fully aware where most of you come from. I was there, done that.

However, if you can overcome this obstacle, i.e. pre judging people who criticize the beliefs of someone else and listen to them first before branding them as racists, you might be able to hear me better. Otherwise this is a futile discussion. Prejudice blinds and creates a very jaundiced view of things where right seems wrong and vice versa.

Often complex problems can be solved once they are dissected into their components and solution to each component is found separately. This problem must be dissected into its components also.

At this moment I would like to concentrate only on one component of this problem without linking it to any other components. Then we move to the next component and eventually put all the components together and see how they relate. A lot of logical fallacies can be avoided in this way. Often one minor logical fallacy is taken for granted and used as the corner stone to build a huge edifice of fallacies. The building is crooked even though everything else seems right. What is wrong is the cornerstone. The building is built correctly but it is founded on a false premise and that is why it is not going to stay on its feet. A chain is strong as its weakest link. So let us inspect each link in this problem separately and then put them together.

Say, Joe Bloe is a believer in a religion called Halleluiah. He sees someone of his religion dispute with someone else about his faith. He volunteers to act as the mediator. Can he be an unbiased mediator in this case? Isn’t this conflict of interest? Let us say I am a judge and my father or son has a dispute with a stranger. Is it ethically right for me to act as the judge in the court hearing between my father and his opponent? Let us say a creationist gets into argument with an evolutionist. Can another creationist act as the arbitrator and decide which side is right?

The question is clear and the answer to that is either yes or no. Depending on you answer I will decide whether I would like to continue or not. Just as you don’t know me, I don’t know you. As I said it is natural for both of us to be suspicious of each other. Depending on how you respond to this very elemental question I will determine whether you have conscience, are fair minded and continuing this discussion is beneficial or whether you are a bigot and talking to you is a waste of my time.

Please think only of Joe Bloe. We are not talking about Gren, but of Joe Bloe. Do not side track and do not bring him into the argument. Is it ethical for Joe Bloe to present himself as an impartial arbitrator with binding authority and demanding full compliance when he is clearly meddling in affairs that are close to his heart like his religion? OceanSplash 17 Dec. 2005 00:22

There is also another temptation that is also natural that needs to be controlled and that is the “better than thou” impulse. It is very common that in any dispute the bystanders assume a righteous attitude and start preaching to both sides about generalities, and trivila things known by everyone. These are all signs of weaknesses and mental inability to see the problem for what it is and instead of trying to find it root, patronize and preach. Patronizing attitude are not the signs of greatness but rather pettiness of the person who patronizes and preaches. Conflicts have a source and the source must be found and eliminated. Preaching to both sides does not make one look grand but it rather belies the person’s insecurities and his inner desire for respect and greatness. It would help to avoid that temptation. OceanSplash 17 Dec. 2005 01:13

Is it unethical? I am not sure that bringing ethics into this is necessarily correct. You would have to define the system and describe what level of ethical code it violates. I will make it a little more simple. Is it correct for Joe Bloe to say he is impartial? No. Joe Bloe (representing any human) is not impartial whether he is the same religion as either the defendant or the plaintiff or unrelated to either of them. One of my professors, a Muslim, is better at seeing faults in schools of Islamic thought than my Christian friend who is trying to remain courteous. The problem here is representing anyone as an impartial moderator and judging that impartiality based on their religion.

I have played the Joe Bloe game; now to the crux of the issue. I have no prejudged you. In fact, I completely agree with your depiction of some brands of Islam. However, your belief presumes a true Islam denying the rights of others to interpret it. Take this for example. Most Muslims believe that the seal of the prophets refers to Muhammad being the last. The Ahmadiyya disagree. Personally I am not sure how they come to their conclusion but they do and they claim to be Muslim and they are because they make that claim. We represent that. Truthfully, I agree with you in a sense. Why am I not Muslim? Because I have ethical differences with my interepretation of the Qur'an and hadith. (not to mention having a problem with prohethood in general, etc.) However, my interpretation of Islam is not Islam and this is where you I have a problem with how you write. You take your system of hermeneutics and impose it on Muslims. Every notable interpretation of Islam should be addressed. You have your war mongers and your pacifists and everywhere in between. In your talk on Jimbo Wale's page you said you know what Islam is like. But, you know an aspect and it doesn't seem that you knew a very good aspect and I feel sorry for that. However, you seem, to have a very prescriptivist view of Islam and that should not fly in this encyclopedia. Islam is defined by Muslims and outside academic views. We need Muslim theologians, academic historians and sociologists, demographers, etc. to represent this and all religions.

In any case, you still ignored my main problem. Don't insult Muslims or anybody and don't attempt to degrade someone because of their religion as you did me. What made it even more annoying is that you were just completely wrong for me. So, if you had stopped doing that you would never have been blocked. I don't mind you having open and honest discussions about your religious views so much on user talk pages; but it does not belong on article talk.

I forget what I was typing. gren グレン 05:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Gren: Ethics apply to all spheres of human life. There is nothing that falls beyond it. You can’t pick and choose and decide when it is convenient to be ethical and when it is not. When you override the standards of ethic you act unethically and in those instances you are an unethical person. You say: “You would have to define the system and describe what level of ethical code it violates.” What is this? Isn’t this moral relativism? The norms of ethics are clear to ethical people. You must not do to others what you do not wish to be done unto you. You abused your power. You volunteered to act as mediator when there was a conflict of interest. When I reminded you that this is unethical you again abused your power and instead of apologizing and stepping aside you acted dictatorially and banned me. These actions are unethical. And when you question the universality of ethics, it shows you are a moral relativist person. You can’t defend your position with logics and the only way you know to win an argument is through force. This attitude is reprehensible. It is dictatorial. It is the law of jungle and has no place in civilized societies.

You are not impartial. It is not up to you to decide whether you are impartial or not. Your bias is jarring. You have not been courteous to me as a non-Muslim but rather rude nd abusive. I asked you to step aside because I do not trust you to be fair. You should have stepped aside. You were not appointed to act as mediator. You self appointed yourself. You took interest in our dispute because you had vested interest. Everything you did was unethical. When I complained that you are biased and unfit to act as mediator you accused me of “disruptive behavior” and banned me. This is abuse of power. Are you ashamed of your conduct? Are you apologizing? No! You are justifying it and rationalizing your unethical conduct and even questioning the merits and universality of ethics.

You wrote: “and this is where you I have a problem with how you write.” You can have problem with what or how I write until cows come home. What you think of what I write is of no concern to me. You have no right to curtail my freedom of speech. You broke the rules of neutrality in this encyclopedia. And then you abused your power over differences of opinion and not because I had been in breach of the rules of Wikipedia. So until you learn the rules of Wikipedia, you should not serve as an administrator. You must step down until you overcome your weaknesses and learn that even though you have problem with someone else’s view you have no right to forcefully try to impose yours or gag them.

You wrote: “You take your system of hermeneutics and impose it on Muslims.” I do not try to impose anything on Muslims or anyone else. I want my first amendment right to show the other side that Muslims hide. I want equal rights to say that this subject has other facets too which is shared by many voiceless people. You and your zealot ilk have been strangulating me since I set my foot in this place. You kept breaking the rules of neutrality. You are in breach of the standards set by Wikipedia. You are the ones who are imposing your unilateral version. I am not trying to stop you saying whatever you want to say. I want my right to say what the critics of Islam say. You must come to term that the critics of Islam have as much right to express their views as its defenders and the only way to deal with them is not through assassination, terror and censorship. We are not a small group. But we are afraid for our lives to speak openly. Wikipedia should not become another tool of censorship and repression at the service of the Islamists.

You wrote: “But, you know an aspect and it doesn't seem that you knew a very good aspect and I feel sorry for that”. Although I have been on both sides of the fence and could easily prove that it is not me that knows only one side but you, however, let us for the sake of argument say I know only one aspect of Islam and there are many more aspects to it as well. That is okay. I represent the views of the side that I subscribe to and you represent the views that you subscribe too. If there are ten different views, all of them individually could be biased but if every one is allowed to express the view that he or she represent, the articles we write collectively will not be biased. By censoring opposing views you are making the article biased.

You wrote: “You seem, to have a very prescriptivist view of Islam and that should not fly in this encyclopedia.” Who is to determine whose views are “prescriptivist”? You think my views are prescriptivist and I think yours are. Why should Wikipedia reflect only yours and censor mine? Is the majority always right? I tolerate your prescriptivist views. Why can’t you tolerate mine? Wikipedia is not an apologetic book. It must reflect all views without taking side.

You wrote: “Islam is defined by Muslims and outside academic views. We need Muslim theologians, academic historians and sociologists, demographers, etc. to represent this and all religions.” This is nonsense. No one is checking the credentials of the contributors to Wikipedia on any subject. Why Islam should be different. Let those who think they are expert write too. Who is stopping them? How do you know who is expert and who is not? The "truth" is relative and it is not up to an encyclopedia to tell the "truth". We must states all sides. Let the readers chose which side is the truth. All these inane excuses boil down to the fact that you have no tolerance for opposing views. All this shows you want to be a dictator here and censor views contrary to Islam.

You wrote: “Don't insult Muslims or anybody and don't attempt to degrade someone because of their religion as you did me" Gren: You broke the rules of NPOV. You broke the norms of ethics. You did this out of religions zealotry. This is not an insult. You abused your power and acted dictatorially. You sound like any dictator that orders his subjects to “comply” with his fiat and then jails them and kills them if they protest accusing them of “disruptive behavior”. Dictators hate accountability. This is not an insult. This is what I am charging you of. I am charging you of abuse of power and of breaking the rules of Wikipedia. Why you did that is only my guess and my guess is that you are more motivated by your religious bigotry than by ethics or dedication to Wikipedia.

You wrote: “What made it even more annoying is that you were just completely wrong for me”. Really!? So if anyone annoys your Highness, you will abuse your power and ban him? Thank you for the revelation. You are also annoying me. What should I do? Your alibis are nothing but confessions of guilt.

You wrote: “So, if you had stopped doing that you would never have been blocked.” But of course! If all those massacred by Saddam Hussein had complied with his orders would he have killed them? All these prisoners of conscience rutting in jails in dictatorial countries have annoyed the despotic rulers. So according to your twisted sense of justice, it is their fault for not complying. It may not be politically correct to saying, but incidentally this is how things work in Islamic countries. As long as you comply with the whims of the ruler, you are left alone. But if you speak out, you will be accused of “disruptive behavior” and are jailed or killed.

You wrote: “I don't mind you having open and honest discussions about your religious views so much on user talk pages; but it does not belong on article talk.” Who set that rule? Would it be allowed also for Christians, Hindus of other religionist set such rules? Every sentence you wrote in this message proves you are a dictator and unfit to be an administrator. Everything you wrote is against the norms set by Wikipedia. OceanSplash 20 Dec. 2005 06:19

(I had responded here where Mirv had moved it. I will paste it below for greater ease. gren グレン 15:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OceanSplash. You have claimed that I am both a moral relativist and a Muslim! I find that very interesting.

You say, "I want my first amendment right to show the other side that Muslims hide." In your quest remember WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.

You also said, "But we are afraid for our lives to speak openly." OceanSplash, do I make you fear for your life? I ask this in all honesty because what you are saying seems to imply that I would harm you. Do you believe that?

" This is nonsense. No one is checking the credentials of the contributors to Wikipedia on any subject." I was referring to the necessity of citing scholarly sources and not amateur websites. This goes for Muslim and non-Muslim sources. When anyone is quoting from an forum we have problems.

"Dictators hate accountability." I am accountable. Please refer to WP:RFC and WP:RFAr if you must.

"Who set that rule?" Read Wikipedia:Talk pages. You talk about that article on its page. It's a rule.

--gren グレン 05:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it an Islamic law to kill the apostates or not? Doesn’t the Quran say kill those who reject faith or not? Aren’t you a Muslim? The answer to all the above is yes. So people who criticize Islam have legitimate reasons to fear for their lives. If you doubt, go and convince Theo Van Gogh. The Internet is the only medium available for the critics of Islam to speak out and here you are trying to take that right away. So please do not play innocent. You are not! You are part and parcel of the same religion that terrorizes people. Your action was dictatorial and that is independent of my contribution. OceanSplash 22 Dec. 2005 17:10

Here is the problem. Your question presumes there is one Islamic law. Which means, there is one interpretation... that's just wrong. So, yes, Islamic is interpretted to mean killing apostates and interpretted to mean not killing them. I'd say that the more traditional madhhabs say kill them but there are other barriers to it really happening. Sufi orders are also different and they are Muslim even if not the same legalistic tradition. And no, I'm not a Muslim and proper etiquette would dictate you don't presume another's faith. I also think that your getting it completely wrong allows me to call into question many of your other assumptions. You do come back for these little dicussions with me at least.

I'm curious... what made you convert to Islam? gren グレン 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is another subject. My problme with you is that you abused your powers and acted dictatorially. Of course I can refute everything you said above but one thing at a time. You have first to take responsibility for your despotism apologize or setp down. You are not fit for the task. OceanSplash 23 Dec. 2005 4:50

[edit] Page protection issues

FYI - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/SlimVirgin2

[edit] Slim Virgin

SlimVirgin is Muslim? Homey 19:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes she is a Muslim. Muslims come in all forms and shapes. Some don't even practice their religion and you may think they are liberal Muslims. But they are all fanatical in defending their religion and at any momemnt in their lives the most moderate Muslim can become a fundamentalist. Remember that Mohammad Atta was not religious at all. To understand Muslims properly you must have been a Muslim at least for a few years. Why do you think the order for apostates is death? Because they come to know the inner secrets of Muslim mind and that is why they become so dangerous that have to be put to death. OceanSplash 20 Dec. 2005 06:19

Muslims are masters of tricks. Can we be sure Homey is not a Muslim playing the game of taqqyah? Once you be become a Muslim and see how they lie with clear conscience you won't be surprised of anything. SlimVirgin is from SE Asia. She probably has not see a Jew in her life.OceanSplash 27 Dec. 2005 17:33

So do you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is Muslim? Why do you assume that SlimVirgin is from SE Asia? BTW, no, I'm not Muslim. Homey 05:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The one heated argument I've had on Wikipedia in more than a year here, has been with SlimVirgin who I felt was being POV on an article about one of the July 7th bombers - but it's important to note that I felt she was being too condemning in her words, and I must admit I muttered a few things about her being a tad unfair to a Muslim youth in the days immediately following the attack...I've been surprised to see her called Muslim since then, though there's no reason to doubt it, I'm highly critical of many Christians myself, but I would never dream of classifying her as even a minimally fundamentalist. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] blocked

You have been blocked for 1 week for personal attacks, blatant racist remarks, and disruption. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 23:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have also deleted your user page as it consists entirely of racist attacks. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ----

That's really weak, man.--Nosharia 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sockpuppetry

Just wanted to inform you that your sockpuppet Nosharia has been blocked indefinitely. Sockpuppetry does not help your case. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

And what was your evidence that Nosharia was my Sockpupet? This is libel and a disgusting lie. OceanSplash

[edit] Please Visit "List of Political Epithets" and "Useful Idiot"

Please visit these pages and make revisions as you see fit. They are in great need of reverts/revisions of their leftist POV. Thank You.

[edit] Babajobu nomination

OS, the vote has closed and the page is an archive that shouldn't be altered. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay sorry I did not notice the voting is closed. But looks like my vote was redundant anyway. I am glad to see you voted for him. At least we found one thing to agree on. Maybe it is a start. OceanSplash 7 Jan 2006 01:08

I'm sure Babajobu will be delighted to know he's brought us together. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As per your request

As per your request I have requested that someone with the privileges do a sockcheck, the request can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#requested_sock_check Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of sockpuppetry, it turns out that Nosharia was actually a sockpuppet of Absent and has been blocked indefinitely (again) by User:Kelly Martin as such. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thanks for being a gentleman. Wouldn’t it have been better if you asked someone to check into it before blocking Nosharia and undermining my character? Nosharia was the same as Absent, but Absent was blocked also accused of being my sockpuppet. We can’t blame Absent for coming back as Nosharia. He had no other choice. He was blocked wrongfully in the first place. OceanSplash 7 Jan 2006 05:17

Absent was not blocked for being your sock puppet. His block had nothing to do with you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, and more

Hi OceanSplash! Just want to say thanks for your kind words regarding my RfA. I saw that you tried to vote for me, and I appreciate the thought. It's unfortunate that you were blocked for a week for being a sockpuppet of someone in another country! I was going to leave a note with Jtkiefer asking about it, but I see that your complain has been validated by a checkuser. Again, I'm sorry that you were prevented from editing Wikipedia for a week. If there is anything I can do to help you out at any point, please let me know. Thanks again! Babajobu 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the block on OceanSplash had nothing to do with that and I never suspected him of being a sock nor did I block because I suspected another user of being a sock of him (luckily due to the fact I was incorrect on that), he was blocked for incivility and blatant racism. My apologies OceanSplash for using your talk page to reply to someone else's comments but I feel a clarification was necessary in this instance. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer, apologies, I misunderstood the situation. OceanSplash left me a note complaining that he had been incorrectly blocked for a week for being/using a sockpuppet. Then I saw your request for a checkuser, and your apology upon receiving its results. I put the two events together and assumed the sockpuppet concerns had led to the block. This is what led to my remark. I didn't realize the ban had in fact been for something else. Apologies for the confusion. Babajobu 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Jtkiefer wrote: "he was blocked for incivility and blatant racism."

It does not seem to me that you are repentant after all. I withdraw that title of “gentleman” until this matter is resolved and you have proven yourself to be a gentleman. As it is clear, you seem to continue pouring your vitriol on me and “assassinating” my character. Your accusations against me are all subjective and motivated by your religious affiliation.

I would like to take this matter further and ask someone independent whose judgment is not obfuscated by religious hatred of the apostates to decide whether you acted properly or overstepped the boundaries of moderation and violated your powers bestowed on you by the Wikipedians. I would like again to ask BabaJobu, who even my numerous Muslim opponents acknowledge to be a fair-minded person to check into this matter and determine whether I acted with incivility or you overstepped your limits. Incivility is an insult. It is synonymous to barbarity, impoliteness, insolence, unmanrliness and impudence. You did not stop there. You even accused me of racism. This is far worse.

Will you please tell us how did you come to these very harsh conclusions? If you can’t, are you decent enough to acknowledge you acted hastily and out of your religious zeal?

Your accusation that I used a scocpuppet was proven wrong. Now you deny having accused me of being a sockpuppet. You are right. You said Nosharia is my sockpuppet. Is there a difference? You seem to undermine our intelligence Sir. That was easy to prove false and you had not choice but to apologize. Now you are making another even bigger accusation. This time you are insulting me. I request that you show in an objective way the basis of this accusation or withdraw it. Halfhearted apologies are not needed, but acknowledgement of your misjudgment of my character would be welcomed.

I accused those Muslims who attacked me, censored me and blocked me of acting unfairly and out of their religious conviction and not out of their allegiance to Wikipedia, impartiality and fairness. I did not deserve to be treated in this harsh manner. The only reason I was dealt with in such a way is because I tried to make Wikipeida impartial and an unbiased source of information when it comes to Islam. It is my belief the encyclopedias should not serve as platform or propaganda for any religion or belief but rather the views of the supporters and the critics of that belief should be reported with total impartiality. This is not something Muslims can stomach easily. They call the critics of Islam “Islamophobes” and “racists” to silence them. Christians have also their critics. Bertrand Russell and Thomas Pain are just two of many. Nonetheless the critics of Christianity are not called Christianophobes and racists. They are not vilified by the Christians. They are not accused of being hate mongers. They are respected as philosophers and thinkers even though the Christians do not agree with them. I am a critic of Islam. What right you have to call me an Islamophobe and a racist? What right you have to call me incivil? These are adhominems and insults at my character and integrity.

We must not let this pass without clarifying the point. Evil triumphs when good people do nothing. I believe what you did, and what other Muslims did to me was wrong. You ganged up together; acted out of religious zealotry, abused my right to free speech, violated the rules of Wikipedia, harassed me, blocked me and even insulted me. This matter must be investigated especially because you are seeking to become an arbitrator and you continue with your character assassination of me and insults. You must show you are fit for office you are seeking. OceanSplash 8 Jan 2006 02:20

[edit] blocked

First of all I'm not muslim and you have no right to free speech here to harass other editors and to spew your blatant hate speech. You have been blocked indefinitely for harrassing other users and for blatant racism despite being warned that we don't tolerate that here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Islam is a race? Kinda puts a dent in the whole 'universal faith' thing. Lord Patrick 06:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

OceanSplash, I asked for some clarification on the precipitating factor for your ban. Will get back to you. Babajobu 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and here is the link to WP:ANI. [1] Babajobu 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new category for Wikipedians

You may be interested in a new category for Wikipedians that I've just created. It's unusual & you may find it questionable. If so, feel free to ask me about it here & I'll try to explain my motives more clearly. Please have a look at it's description at Category:Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors. The category is for Wikipedians who feel that they have been censored/bullied by Islamists on Wikipedia regarding valid/fair/worthy additions to articles. This is NOT a political category.

To add yourself to this category, simply copy & paste this to your user page;

[[Category:Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors|YOUR USER NAME]]

remembering to insert your own username instead of "YOUR USER NAME". Veej 00:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please...

Everyone is aware of your Islamophobic campaign against Islam, however, "Answering Christianity" is hardly a reliable source to use in Wikipedia articles.

Also, could you please show where the New York Times article states four million times? [2] Zain 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote Needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_20#Category:Islamophobia

[edit] Barnstar

--CltFn 20:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainstar

--FairNBalanced 18:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all these awards. I am not sure why I earned them. Too bad they do not have monetary value :) OceanSplash 06:26 May 27 2006

[edit] Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf

Many thanks for your appreciation. Pecher ^Talk 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Islamic Scholars

OceanSplash:

I noticed your recent posts on the list of Islamic scholars page that listed some critics of Islam. I also saw that some felt it appropriate to revert the previous page before these comments were made. I think it might be wise if before posting these, we discuss it on the talk page because I think the one use questions whether these were in fact scholars. Moreover, I think some question their place.

I think if you feel strongly about them, then the talk plage is the proper outlet to discuss it first before posting. It might be wise for the sake of decorum and to assuage some egos if we removed them first then discussed it till as close to a rational consensus could be reached.ZaydHammoudeh 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)