User:Fairness And Accuracy For All/rfa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Tbeatty's POV pushing and partisan agenda

even uses the reference desk as a platform for POV pushing and promoting his conspiracy theories

"I believe the eastern United States has been cooling steadily [1] but lots of places have been cooling. Not that you would have heard it on the news :). There are lots of suggested outcomes of Global Warming mostly though it creates alarmism instead of representing scientific conclusions." User:Tbeatty 05:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC) link


I would support an RFC or ArbCom. But we shouldn't need it. He should be banned for "exhausting the communities patience" and this can be done by any admin for an indefinite amount of time. It happens quite frequently but usually only when an admin has been pised off.--Tbeatty 04:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You, Ruthfulbarbarity, Lawyer2b, and I would support an RFC - if we all start gathering diffs/citations/what have you.... we can do it. It seems like from what I read on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users it's serious and requires a bit of reserarch/time. Lawyer2b mentioned he would start on it tomorrow. --Neverborn 06:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I've also asked for Admin intervention for "exhausting the communities patience." See the PW talk page or NBGPWS's talk page. --Tbeatty 06:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Should others comment or is that n ot necessary? I'm still somewhat new to Wiki. --Neverborn 06:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a consensus thing so a short concurrence or objection is probably all that's needed.--Tbeatty 06:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

archive #2


Dino says, "Let's review"

This is a contentious, emotionally charged, politically delicate topic. Based on the experiences of the City of Fresno regarding their "hate group" allegation, Jim Robinson will not hesitate to take legal action to protect his name and reputation, and those of Free Republic; I am doing my very best to prevent that from happening. When writing about such litigious people and organizations, it is best to err on the side of caution.

The alleged "TJ Walker article," even if it was written by TJ Walker, was self-published; and as you've mentioned, TJ Walker is a liberal. That, by itself, is sufficient grounds for removing it under WP:BLP. That article was then published on AmericanPolitics.com, a highly partisan left-wing website. This is also sufficient grounds for removing it under WP:BLP.

Even if WP:BLP does not apply, Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises surely applies. While it is not yet Wikipedia policy, it has been proposed as policy and that proposal should meet favorable responses. It closely follows WP:BLP and in many places, it is a word-for-word copy. Dino 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming from a member of the FR legal team, that is a LEGAL THREAT. --BenBurch 17:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Let's remove it. Tbeatty 17:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule. Thanks. Dino 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC) link
Bryan's THIRD day on Wiki

If you're going to mention that Chad Castagana was a freeper in the Free Republic article, I'm going to start rummaging through all the articles about left-of-center organizations and making sure that their John Wayne Gacys are mentioned prominently.

BryanFromPalatine 00:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) link


Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Turnabout is fair play. What goes around, comes around. If it is appropriate for Wikipedia to include information about Chad Castagana and the Chuy's in the FR article, then it is appropriate to include information about every registered Democratic Party voter who was ever found guilty of a crime in the Democratic Party article; it is appropriate to include information about every person who ever had an account at DU who was ever found guilty of a crime in the DU article; etc., etc. BryanFromPalatine 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

link

Regarding the inclusion of Chad Castagana material in this article, I've journeyed to the article about the Democratic Party and added a section about John Wayne Gacy, as well as two Democratic presidents who have been impeached, and 23 Democratic Congressmen who have been convicted on criminal charges in the past 40 years. It was almost instantly the target of multiple reverts, even after my first revert left out the information about Gacy. All of the others were federal elected officials of the Democratic Party, but information about them was still reverted by the guardians of that article. BryanFromPalatine 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

-snip-

link

Enforcement Request on BryanFromPalatine (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log • rfcu) for sockpuppetry, block evasion, and disruption (BenBurch ANI) Revision as of 03:22, 14 January 2007 (edit) (undo) 38.119.66.207 (Talk)

You jerks will never block me. And if you think this ends here on Wikipedia, you are mistaken. I know who you are and I know where you are. link

Note : Dino wrote in unblock L : "Any skeptics among you can feel free to monitor my account after it is unblocked, and block me again at the slightest hint of abusive or disruptive behavior." On the FR talk page he writes, while 'claiming' BLP, even though he admits BLP might not apply: "Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it [contested material] aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule." link - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Jossi, the article mediator, said that BLP doesn't apply (DH)
That's another misrepresentation. Jossi didn't say that BLP doesn't apply. He asked, "Why is it WP:BLP mentioned?" How can anyone get anything constructive done around here with all of these misrepresentations? Dino 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You've GOT to be kidding me. I suggest you read the Wiki article Rhetorical question - Fairness & Accuracy For All link


My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel, and Wikipedia administrators understand that. Free Republic has already successfully sued the City of Fresno for libel, winning a $60,000 out-of-court settlement and also costing the City of Fresno maybe $100,000 in attorney fees (maybe a lot more; lawyers in Southern California are expensive). So they're inclined to litigate.
The Free Republic article is being edited and "owned" by some very reckless partisans from a rival left-wing site named Democratic Underground. They don't care whether Wikipedia gets sued. What's important to them is making sure that the most derogatory material about Free Republic that exists anywhere on the Internet either becomes part of the article, or is linked to the article. They are defending it with a fanaticism that reminds me of Iwo Jima.
If Wikipedia gets sued, there will be a dozen administrators stripping every defamatory statement and reference out of the article and blocking the editors responsible, and I'll be saying, "I told you so." But by then it will be too late. If I can succeed in getting this material removed, I'll take your advice and start editing other articles. Thanks for looking out for me. But I'm looking out for Wikipedia. Cheers. Dino 14:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
To a number of outsiders it looks like your whole purpose is to keep the Free Republic article from including anything negative. Which would, of course, stop Wikipedia being sued by them, as subjects of a hagiography rarely do sue, but your self-evident and admitted conflict of interest means you should be a good deal less aggressive when fighting your corner. Guy (Help!) 23:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
link

The opposing parties don't need to lift a finger. JzG is prosecuting their case for them. Dino 00:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • There's no rule against interested editors chiming in with their view of the evidence and preferred outcomes. I don't see Guy taking a side, but if he is, that isn't improper. TheronJ 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Calling Dean Hinnen a neo-Nazi is improper. I've asked JzG to consider an apology. CWC(talk) 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • When and where did JzG call DeanHinnen a "neo-Nazi" ? Thanks. - FAAFA 22:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't, it's a completely baseless claim. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I advised and requested of CWC that he retract his mendacious defamation. He refused. Twice. - FAAFA 10:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Dino, all I'm doing is moving the spoil out of the way to help you dig yourself a little deeper. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Guy called Dino "far-right". I suspect that (like most Britons) Guy knows little of what that term means in America, as I explained at some length on his talk page. (I also explained there why I take this so seriously.) Not all the U.S. far right groups are as bad as Neo-Nazis; most of them are worse. Compared to the real U.S. far right, the Freepers are a suburban book club. I wrote "calling Dean Hinnen a neo-Nazi" because that is what he did, even if he didn't understand the meaning of the insult to its target.
Or perhaps Guy is testing Dino: if Dino can withstand all the baiting he's getting from Guy, he can stand anything? Cheers, CWC(talk) 13:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Update: Guy says he didn't mean to call Dino a neo-Nazi, or anything similar. It's just another example of communication difficulties when phrases have different meanings in different nations. End of story? CWC(talk) 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You just don't know when to quit digging, do you CWC? As an AMERICAN, not an Aussie, (I like how you presume that YOU know American politics - but Guy, a Brit, certainly can't! - that's real moxie!) who has been intimately involved with American politics for over 20 years, and holds great respect for the 'far-right' conservatives Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan - you are completely mistaken. Most everyone who knows American politics would classify mainstream politicians like the two just mentioned (the Good Doctor Paul might be wedged up against the stream's bank) Rick Santorum, Peter Roskam and Sam Brownback as 'far-right' - and furthermore - that term isn't even pejorative. (even though those conservatives mentioned hold vastly different views) The terms 'Far-right', and 'neo-Nazi' are nowhere near synonymous. Not. Even. Close. (hat-tip to Dino for the punctuation tip!) link. I guess though - if you want to continue to portray them - and DeanHinnen as 'neo-Nazis' that's your provincial Australian perogative. It's certainly better than apologizing and admitting a mistake, eh matey? - FAAFA 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
FAAFA is trolling again, but I'll bite.
Buchanan is "paleoconservative", a word invented precisely because "far right" already had a different meaning. Ron Paul is "libertarian". Santorum and Brownback are strongly "social conservatives". Dr James Dobson is an extreme social conservative. These people all operate within the political system.
The far right bash people up, kill people, preach RaHoWa, set up fortified compounds, file billions of dollars of liens based on "strange" legal theories, etc. For various reasons, lots of people like to pretend that Buchanan or Santorum are as far right as you can get: they are badly, dangerously wrong.
Check out the works of Chip Berlet (User:Cberlet) for more information. And "matey" is pirate-talk, buddy ;-). CWC(talk) 17:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about adding a 'y' to 'mate.' I'm about as familiar with Aussie slang as you are with American politics!
"The conference was also an opportunity for Republicans looking to solidify their credentials with the far Right. The right-wing Washington Times called speeches by Newt Gingrich, Sens. George Allen (R-Virginia), Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), and Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania) as well as Govs. Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts) and Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas) “auditions” for potential Republican presidential candidates..." link
I really tried to snatch that shovel out of your hands CWC, but you wouldn't let me! My continued attempts, and your refusal, make me suspect that both of us might have 'a few Kangaroos loose in the top paddock'. Did I get that Aussie slang right? (I urge you keep up the good work on Michelle Malkin - after the Jamil Hussein Debacle she needs all the help she can get! ;-) - FAAFA 22:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Update : Just noticed your retraction, CWC. You're a good bloke! (do they say that there ?;-) - FAAFA 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
off wiki calls for systemic meatpuppetry ==

it has become apparent that Arrow740 (talk • contribs) has been attempting to recruit meatpuppets on off-wiki fora such as faithfreedom.org, a website known for espousing extreme anti-Muslim views. here are some examples of these posts under the pseudonym "Google=Wikipedia":[2][3][4][5][6][7]

from here

"Well here's something you guys can do. Spend 5-10 minutes a day on revert-warring, i.e. go to Islam articles and revert them back to the most anti-Islam one you see there. If you do this a few times you'll know which users to revert back to. If there's an edit war going on you can really help that way."

"... It's a really, really small group of people! There is a group of 5 to 10 hardcore Muslim apologists who are constantly slanting the articles toward pro-Islam! This is so dangerous. When people use google they're going to be reading what a handful of Muslim apologists have to say about the subject. There are some people fighting for good but we really need some help.

Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!"

from here:

"... There can be no formal organization there to promote a particular point of view. We could organize things from here."

"If you really care about stopping the spread of Islam you'll work on wikipedia."

"We get articles of theirs deleted all the time. Ali Sina is covered well in the article about FaithFreedom, which we were able to keep because it's received coverage from some notable sources. Ali Sina links there. Wikipedia is fair, but it requires work and dedication. Isn't getting the word out about Islam worth it? The only reason this matters is because, as my name says, Google=Wikipedia. YOU can help shape what google has to say about Islam and you're not doing it."

"We need to find historians (Islamic studies people would be best, but any trained historian will do some good) that say bad things about Islam and Muhammad and quote them in articles. "

"I would tell you my username but one of the Muslims might try to use my advertising over here to get me blocked."

from here

"OK so we know that wikipedia can be a battleground. Here's something easy (and fun) you can do to help... ...Help the good guys and hurt the bad guys by simply reverting to the last version by a good guy. Check back every few minutes, you can use three reverts per 24 hour period, after that you will get a temporary block.

Here are the lists:

Good guys (in alphabetical order): Arrow740 Beit Or Hypnosadist Karl Meier Merzbow Proabivouac Sefringle Str1977

Bad: ALM scientist Aminz Bless sins Itaqallah Kirbytime Nielswik Striver Strothra Truthspreader"

the quotes speak for themselves, more can be seen upon further analysis of the threads. evidence proving beyond doubt that the user involved in this is User:Arrow740 is as follows:

  • "Google=Wikipedia" was a main participant in a dispute on Muhammad's slaves as can be deduced from this post: [8]. he says:"Muslims got the lists censored because they claimed it needed context and that their Arabic wasn't good enough" - this is a reference to the discussion between myself and Arrow740 on my talk page and on the article talk page. in particular, "'they claimed it needed context and that their Arabic wasn't good enough" refers to my comments here.
  • Arrow740 shows interest in and awareness of the Faith Freedom International forums, on which Google=Wikipedia posted. [9] Arrow also significantly participates on the Faith Freedom article.[10]
  • "Google=Wikipedia" lists a number of articles he wishes for FFI participants to blind revert on (Jan 25), naming the "good guys" and the "bad guys" (as quoted above). incidentally, these are almost all of the articles on which Arrow740 has been involved in substantial disputes, many times heavily edit warring. here are a selection of diffs provided:
  • "Google=Wikipedia" describes eminent historian Montgomery Watt as "a stupid Christian minister who wrote that Muhammad was divinely inspired",[56] which correlates with the antagonism displayed against him by Arrow740. some sample diffs, among others: [57][58]. in particular, the statement: "who wrote that Muhammad was divinely inspired" corresponds with this sarcastic comment: "God exists and Muhammad was his prophet. Watt says it, you cannot deny it!"
  • "Google=Wikipedia" reveals extensive knowledge over the newly formed Criticism of Islam taskforce (of which he is a member): "Of course I know about it. The task force is for anyone who wants to improve articles discussing criticism of Islam. You see how vague that is. There can be no official group whose stated purpose is to promote an anti-Islam point of view." , and also states his frustration over how the group isn't active enough "Where do you get your information about this? The group serves no purpose. It's founder hasn't contributed in over a week. I assure you that I am already fully participating in the struggle to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam.",[59] a group to which Arrow has been one of the very few contributors. the quote also shows that Google=Wikipedia has been active and actively in disputes for a while, as can be seen by Arrow740's contribs during Jan (and this month in fact). the last point is also exemplified by the quote "Don't bother to do anything myself? As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do." (i.e. extensive edit warring, as demonstrated in the diffs above)
  • "Google=Wikipedia" holds an extremely reverential opinion of Robert Spencer, whilst understanding that he is not good enough for citation on wikipedia "In the history articles you need to quote historians, not (great) guys like Spencer. In the criticism articles you can quote the critics." this opinion stems from the numerous disputes Arrow has been involved in regarding Spencer (i.e. Talk:Criticism_of_Islam#Robert_Spencer, Talk:Dhimmi#al-Hibri). the last sentence of that extract corresponds with: [60][61][62]
  • "Google=Wikipedia" indicates that he has communicated in the past with relatively new user User:Matt57 - "Our paths have crossed a few times"[63], as has Arrow740 [64] [65]
  • "Google=Wikipedia" states "Ali Sina is covered well in the article about FaithFreedom, which we were able to keep because it's received coverage from some notable sources. Ali Sina links there. ", indicating he was aware of the relevant AfD's related to Ali Sina (AfD, DRV) and Faith Freedom International, the last of which Arrow740 was a key participant.
  • such behaviour is not out of character, as Arrow was recently found to be votestacking in an AfD.[66][67][68][69]. he is also known for recruiting like-minded editors on-wiki to enforce changes on articles, example diffs[70][71][72][73][74] among many of this nature. considering the above, it is reasonable to consider that privately contacting numerous editors sharing his viewpoint may have been similarly inappropriate:[75][76][77][78][79]

i would appreciate administrators' opinions and any appropriate intervention. thank you.ITAQALLAH 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused as to what difference there is between groups like this being organized and what looks to be a very organized group of editors that work together with Itaqallah who take an opposing point of view, and why Itaqallah and his friends are not also called meatpuppets? And if so is this not something that should be addressed with relation to both of them? It looks like Itaqallah and Arrow740 from the link to each of their contributions have long histories around each other and that this may be just the latest attack from one to the other. I will be open and admit that I find many of Itaqallah's edits to be less than helpful or possibly factually incorrect after reviewing the various pages he links to that he himself has edited on repeatedly.

Also, wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is it not? If there is a serious bias problem going on, it seems one acceptable solution should be to invite people to come in and fix the offending articles. When Itaqallah links to a page that I think means there is a debate on when an article might be deleted, and says Arrow was "vote stacking" by inviting people to view it, I am unsure of whether there is any difference between Arrow sending messages on here and what would happen if people sent messages to each other privately or on another forum somewhere. There are comments on that page that if I am reading them correctly indicate Itaqallah may have been doing this.

I do not know all the right terms to describe it but I hope I have made my points and questions clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by One Elephant went out to play... (talk • contribs).

Tsk tsk tsk. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't spend much time on Islam related articles, but based on the fact that this individual, whomever he or she may be, is outright asking people to POV revert war, I consider that trolling for disruption and personally I would suggest taking a fairly hard line against it. Despite how One Elephant went out to play... (talk • contribs) is trying to portray this, this was not a request for "people to come in and fix the offending articles". This is absolutely a call for individuals to show up here and create a problem complete with instructions on how to game the 3RR system.--Isotope23 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A déja vu. It reminds me of this back on October 2005. Shees! 18 months later? It is so clear that it consists of a systematic behaviour. Whenever someone would need help they would just go to Faithfreedom.org and gather supporters. I am not sure who is behind this but this should be fixed. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It is very clear to me that it is "Arrow740". First of all, he must be in the list of "good" guys "Arrow740,Beit Or, Hypnosadist, Karl Meier, Merzbow, Proabivouac, Sefringle, Str1977". Well, I have had interaction with all of these editors and I can say with certainty that it can be only Arrow740. His editing style is unique. For example please compare "Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!" from FFI website with this comment of Arrow here "By the way, a co-religionist of yours is being attacked. See Robert Spencer."[80] --Aminz 21:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Aminz and I have an acrimonious relationship, and his "example" is obviously wrong. In fact I never use such gushy language as "Become a wikipedian and join us in the fight!" Arrow740 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Aminz must have an exceptionally good ear for language, since I cannot spot any common patterns in the two phrases above, no matter how hard I try. Beit Or 21:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • in response to the comment below that it could be any other wikipedian sharing Arrows view ("there is no reason to think it's me as opposed to another wikipedian who shares my views")
    • a) what kind of wikipedian would relate a dispute, in detail, which he wasn't even involved in?[81] b) there aren't many other editors who insult Watt as you have. on-wiki, you called him "senile." off-wiki, you called him "stupid." in fact i don't believe i've ever seen an editor insult Watt like that. c) there aren't many other editors (almost none, in fact) who have knowledge of such articles like Constitution of Medina that they'd list it among the articles they're inviting puppets to, especially when they're revert warring at that exact same time. d) there aren't many other editors who are actually aware of the FFI forum as you were[82]. e)yes, as you boast below, you are "one of the most active", which is exactly what G=W boasts. i could go on and on... ITAQALLAH 21:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That's true. In fact, Arrow is the only editor here who insults Watt and holds a greatly postivie view of "Robert Spencer". --Aminz 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the pre-emptive response to my response

a)Anyone. b)I am not as restrained on WP as I should be, but there can be no doubt that every anti-Islam editor shares my feelings about Watt, our FFI poster included. I personally find Esposito to be even more objectionable. c)Obviously, the fact that articles were listed (on FFI but not mentioned here by you) in which I am not involved but others are proves your argument to be hollow. d)Anyone who uses a search engine about Islam comes across that site and others like it eventually, including, apparently, you. e)There are a few editors as active as me. Every such person no doubt does it for a reason. Arrow740 21:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

a)not likely in the least, especially when they list other articles which are similarly visited very little b) your ridiculing of Watt on FFI matches your comments on wiki at around the same time. c) as i said, it is totally understandable why you'd be aware of Islam in China and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. with the first, there was an edit war raging between Proabivouac and an IP during mid Jan when you posted. with the second, you're an "anti-Islam", Indian editor. such an article would be of prime interest to you, non? ITAQALLAH 21:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

That person is not me. I am not active in many of those articles and am active in many articles that are not on that list (which User:Itaqallah did not copy in full, see below). The person posting there could have been any of the other wikipedia editors with an anti-Islam POV. I am one of the most active members of that group, and it seems likely anyone undertaking such an endeavor would see what articles I have been working on, and would have seen User:Itaqallah's talk page where he and I have what he is characterizing as private conversations. I am by no means the most active editor with my POV at

Itaqallah neglected to include here the full list he linked to, conveniently leaving out two articles I don't believe I've ever contributed to: Islam in China and Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent. The purported list also does not include articles that I am heavily involved in, such as

In short, this poster to Faith Freedom International is not me, there is no reason to think it's me as opposed to another wikipedian who shares my views, and it could easily have been User:Itaqallah himself setting me up. I wouldn't put it past him as he's had it in for me for months, and has obliquely threatened to take an action of this kind against me before, in User:Proabivouac's now deleted RfC. Arrow740 19:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • this response is a non-sequitur. why don't you try addressing the actual evidences? please re-read my report, i said "almost all articles listed." it is entirely reasonable to assume you'd list other articles that you were aware of but had not participated upon . the other articles you list: maybe you didn't list them in the FFI thread because you weren't revert warring in them at the time? in response to new user "elephant" and yourself, indeed we have a history. i have a "history" with numerous other editors, yet they haven't been meatpuppeteering as you have. i "obliquely threatened" an RfC, so i don't know what "an action of this kind" refers to. dismissing it as a "set-up" is ridiculous, and you know too well that that's your only line of defense. ITAQALLAH 20:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have proven that none of your arguments are convincing, rightly so because it wasn't me who posted those things. Arrow740 20:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
your only retort until now has been to bluntly accuse me of fabrication, or to 'respond' to the evidences with comments that are not actually responses. ITAQALLAH 20:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to report me based on this suspicion as well? I'm sure you could find an appropriate noticeboard somewhere. Arrow740 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And why don't you file a checkuser request for me and User:One Elephant went out to play...? He's new, it must be me in disguise, right? Arrow740 21:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
No, there's a simpler way to prove or unprove ITAQALLAH's allegations. I'd be tempted to email the moderators of FFI and ask them for your IP address, then ask for a checkuser to be filed on you and ask them to release your IP address. If they match, it's not my problem. Yuser31415 21:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I doubt users involved in the whole Arab-Jew-history of Islam quagmire are stupid enough to solicit meatpuppets. The "proof" against Arrow is quite flawed and nothing links arrow to the meat-caller.Bakaman 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yuser, that might work but please remember that the FFI website is a propaganda website against Islam. If that editor also contacts the director and tells him the story, he *might* give us some random IP. But it of course worth trying. --Aminz 21:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A possibility of impersonation should not be discounted, too. Beit Or 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
In this case, we will have the IP. It seems to me to be very unlikely, e.g. see this comment on FFI: "If you google something, you get the wikipedia article. Please become a wikipedian, find good sources for information about Islam, and put it into wikipedia. If anyone has "sword of the prophet," please quote extensively from it and put it into the Muhammad and Islam articles. Also the "Criticism of Islam," "Criticism of Muhammad," and "Criticism of the Quran" articles don't say much about Muhammad's violence. Can someone put Robert Spencer, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq and any other notable critic into those articles?! There is a little Spencer in the Criticism of the Quran article. Please do this!! There's nothing more effective you can do than to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam! So when people google about Islam they'll find out the truth!"--Aminz 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, so what? Beit Or 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrow has written most of "war-and-violence" section in Criticism of Qur'an mostly using Spencer. --Aminz 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
actually, on closer observation, his listing of critics as G=W corresponds with [83]. ITAQALLAH 21:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
*Nice* observation. --Aminz 21:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This is getting increasingly ridiculous. Aminz, why would I advertise elsewhere asking others to do what I have proven myself to be happy to do? And itaqallah, this is, again, not proof of anything. You have taken bits and pieces of this FFI poster and bits and pieces of my posts and tried to fit them together. It is clear that they do not. Arrow740 21:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "why would I advertise elsewhere asking others to do what I have proven myself to be happy to do" ? you mean revert war..? seemingly not, as you have replicated such "recruiting" on-wiki as well as off. yet again, i see similarities with your comment above and:"Don't bother to do anything myself? As a matter of fact I spend tons of time on wikipedia almost every day doing exactly what I'm asking you to do." ITAQALLAH 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It would behoove you to read before responding. Regarding the language, this:

Please do this!! There's nothing more effective you can do than to make wikipedia tell the truth about Islam! So when people google about Islam they'll find out the truth!

is clearly not me. Arrow740 22:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
don't ask me why you wrote like that. there are plenty of reasons. ITAQALLAH 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Arrrow740 is right. For one thing, I don't remember him ever using exclamation marks. His style is much more restrained. Beit Or 22:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
While there is some circumstantial evidence here, there is no smoking gun per se and I'd hesitate to block anyone based on this at this time. However, the FFI post is serious enough that I'd suggest acting agressively against revert wars on these articles. WP:AGF on new editors, but I don't take kindly to individuals who are just here to disrupt the 'pedia whatever their POV is. If somone shows up and starts reverting to earlier versions they should be warned and then blocked if they do it again. 3RR allows for blocks before they hit 4 edits and I will call "spade if I see disruptive edits.--Isotope23 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it a bit ironic that User:Arrow740 mentions the Reforms under Islam (610-661) article. I actually witnessed what User:Itaqallah is mentioning here myself back in mid November. I even mentioned how an editor didn't need to be blocked and still rely upon sockpuppets (and now that I think about it meatpuppets). (→Netscott) 22:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I see we have about 250 links to faithfreedom.org. I bet we could get by with a good deal fewer, especially in article space. I'm not much inclined to use them for anything that we can get elsewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 22:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/a/i/User%7EFairness_And_Accuracy_For_All_rfa_da0b.html"