"

 OneGuy's vanadalism of the discussion page 
Aside from OneGuy deleting other user's comments, he has now begun to blatently disorganize and effectively vanadalize people's comments: he distrupting the flow of users' comments by arbitrarily cutting off paragraphs and inserting his comments in between, instead of being civil and adding his reply to the end of a given post. Combined with his ceasless personal attacks, false accusations, and insistance on making wikipedia a propoganda machine for Islamist apologetics of the blackest kind, his behaviour has become completely intolerable, and I do not see any point in constantly refuting the same false accusations and false assertions over and over again. OneGuy must be ejected from this discussion before it can have any hope of being a civiled and productive debate. I am left with no choice but to completely resign from this discussion, since it seems that no one is going to be moderating OneGuy's behaviour anytime soon.  Pename

What's ironic is that OneGuy claims he is not a muslim and therefore can not be considered an Islamic apologist!  In fact, most of the Muhammad/Islam apologists here claim to not be Muslim!  Looks like Muhammad's best friends are the infidels.  

As of moderating OneGuy's behavior, the Arbitrators are looking into him and myself after he filed a hypocritical arbitration request against me and I thus filed a countercomplaint against OneGuy.  Whenever OneGuy spots someone who doesn't agree with his radical apologistic viewpoint he tries to silence them by any means at his disposal.  OneGuy, in his complaint in arbitration, accused me of rivert(sic) wars and having POV in my contributions yet he does the exact same thing, only more so.  In the arbitration complaint, the arbitrators don't seem as concerned about the POV contributions as they do about personal attacks, revert wars and my vandalism of his user page. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/168.209.97.34.  When OneGuy was giving evidence against me he incorrectly called a few minor word changes as a revert war (even though the change were only made once or twice) and he clearly left out the revert wars in which he was involved (but the arbitrators were not fooled - they found him out).

Since the arbitrators will probably not do anything about his radical apologistic contributions, they will most likely respond to his vandalism of the talk pages.  Feel free to post your complaints regarding OneGuy on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/168.209.97.34/Evidence.    06:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 Since when replying on talk page has become vandalism? Only one time I deleted Pename comments when he cut and pasted his comments that were already on the page on top of my response in a new section that I created (""death to critics""). Pename has ignored what we are discussing and is resorting to personal insults and false accusations (in violation of wiki policy) that I vandalized the talk page. He now claims that he did not copy the verse from anti-Islamic site. If true, where did he find the interpretation that 8:67 means kill prisoners of war? He implied that interpretation in the article. At worst, the verse condemns the behavior of taking prisoners in order to make money, but he has not given his source that says 8:67 means kill prisoners. Instead of answering where he found that interpretation (if not anti-Islamic site), Pename is resorting to personal insults and outright lies that I vandalized the talk page  18:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 Abuse 

Due warning: every time our anonymous friend makes a personal attack, I'm removing it. See Wikipedia:no personal attacks, also see Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. I've had quite enough of their abuse. To the anonymous user, please start showing a more mature response when replying to comments or arguing your case. -  06:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) (modified  08:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Huh? What'd I do? anon
Nothing. I was talking about another anon. -  08:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, incidently, if the anon removes this comment again they get blocked. -  10:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 Apparently ""Ta bu shi da yu"" believes that if he refers to people as ""immature"" he is not engaging in personal attacks. But if someone calls him a religious appologist, he believes that he can use this as an excuse to delete a page worth of content. This is a clear double standard. Since he has decided to start deleting user comments from the discussion page on such basis, I am deleting ""Ta bu shi da yu""'s comment on the basis of personal attacks. He will not be able to ke