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