Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Archive 3

message: It has been suggested that the Matt Slick article be merged with Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. (Please see Talk:Matt_Slick#Tempest_in_a_teapot.3F.)  As this page is currently protected, I am placing this note here and asking an admin to post the appropriate merge template to the two articles. Justin Eiler 21:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. -Will Beback 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Assuming there is "libel" on AARM, a correction has been offered and not accepted? Yes, then my comment is definitely moot. Thanks. ZincOrbie 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Matt Slick]] 

message: After Diane S uses up her 3 reverts, all of a sudden, a gang of brand new editors appears! And all of them are pushing her pov. Is this a coincidence? Urbie 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not just pushing her POV; they're using exactly the same language as her in their edit summaries.  If these aren't socks, they're clearly meatpuppets.  --Hyperbole 06:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a coincidence. Diane S. has reported this article to other editors that seek to post a NPOV and assist the writing of this article to be accurate and neutral in content, and stopping the use by atheists/liberals, editing this article with the purpose ofin promoting their personal propaganda and political agenda. It is documented fact, both of the editors hyperbole/urbie are members of the aarm discussion boards. They are posting the links consistently in this article, seeking to gain free advertisement for the insignifcant, atheist discussion forums by violating all the rules and guidelines of the wikipedia foundation.
They are now going to claim the new users are all me, their tactics in the past, anyone not agreeing with their edits, they accuse of being the same user. Because they believe that the two of them, as atheist/liberals should be permitted to edit Christian ministry articles and control what is stated or linked in the article by their reverting any other editor :) Go for it, accuse the editors of all being the same person, then prove it. Hyperbole, Urbie, are also "sock puppets". Whenever hyperbole edits his 3 times, urbie follows behind to change any other editor back to hyperbole.vI suggest they are the same user as well. They are using the CARM and Matt Slick articles to promote their personal political agenda by linking to unreliable, unverifiable atheist website discussion boards hate websites not consistent with the rules to links or as verifiable sources. The editors now here will edit and work to restoring this article to a NPOV or have the article deleted. Please have urbie/hyperbole, show us the rule or link to other articles permitting discussion boards as links to facts, or show us links to atheist discussion forums on any other Christian ministry article...Diane S 06:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Diane, perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets, specifically the part that reads "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia."  Stop gathering your family and friends to make edits on your behalf; it is against the rules here.  --Hyperbole 07:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I see, now you are going to bring up the rules? :)Please, let's look into advertising and soliciting help. You have ignored the wikipedia rules here since this article was started and aarm friends appeared. Go back in your history, it was a Christian  that wrote this article attempting to give a NPOV, it was the aarm advertisers, that came here insisting their website be linked, that have edited, deleted or accused editors of being the same persons. Shall we document here all the times you went to aarm forums soliciting help, reporting your progress here and attempts to slander/libel a christian ministry, boasting of your intentions and actions, advertising, with aarm members joining? We can go back in history to see how many of them showed up to edit the article as your "sock puppets" or whatever you want to call them. I have not solicited relatives in the last two days, and certainly have not advertised, but again, have asked for help from editors to return this article to a NPOV as to the rules and guidelines of the Ency.. Any person seeking to edit this article, is doing so to comply with the rules of wikipedia. The atheists/liberals here have ignored each rule, accused anyone that does not agree with their edits, and again, why do you care what is written in a Christian article, you are an atheist, what is your interest? What I have done, is let others know what is going on with this article, and asked for opinions and help to creating a good article, as a last effort before requesting deletion. I will make a deal with you. If you want to follow the rules, let's go through them one by one. This article and the Matt Slick article, have consistently violated the rules. You are using this article for advertisment of an atheist website, and certainly not a "prominent" atheist opinion. Find a reliable, verifiable source, and it will be included. Please do not insult us with links to whacko/hate/propaganda discussion forums or blogs of anonymous users to attack and slander/libel, as your "reliable" source. Again, each user on that discussion forum could be you. You do post there, and as an editor should not be putting your advertisments into this article.  Diane S 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're blatantly soliciting single-purpose editors for the purpose of evading the 3RR; that violates Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets.  I am not.  Any admin reviewing the edit history will immediately see that.  I suggest you stop, if you don't want to be blocked.  --Hyperbole 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you threatening editors here? Now you will have them blocked if they disagree with your editing? There is no public advertisement, please prove that I have publically requested editors on wikipedia? I have requested other editors to help, are you saying that is forbidden, if they don't agree with you? The CARM Homepage has listed this article for many months, an editor above states that is how he happened here, are you saying, individuals may not edit in this article, if they don't agree with you? I see persons above that have disagreed with your edits numerous times, have voiced their objections, which you ignore and revert again to your opinion. Now you are going to threaten any person that edits this article? Again, I will request that you be blocked as to promoting "libelous" website links, forbidden by Jim Wales himself, that you threaten other editors and have used this article to promote your personal agenda.Diane S 20:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking "other editors" to make single-purpose accounts for the purpose of giving you more reverts per day is indeed forbidden.  Such behavior will eventually lead to a block.  That's not a threat, it's a fact.  Again, I suggest you stop.  --Hyperbole 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has been nominated for protected status due to probable sock and meatpuppetry in this ongoing edit war. YankeeGal 00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that this article is temporarily locked, perhaps both sides can come to a concensus on what is and what is not notable, reliable and encyclopedic, and finally put the ceaseless edit wars to an end.  Note that when I initiated the lock, I had no way of knowing which edit would be locked.  I offer no support to either side of the issue, but only wish to see the matter resolved and the edit war to come to a close. YankeeGal 04:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a coincidence? 

message: ::Sockpuppets are legal. Abusive sockpuppets are not. CARM was recruiting people (this is perhaps not the best term) in order to avoid the ban placed on Diane S and CARM generally due to the legal threat. Had AARM made a similar legal threat, they too would have been banned. Please see WP:SOCK and WP:LEGAL for more information. As to the legal threats, there was a clear threat of legal action issued by Diane S and this has been confirmed by several independent Wikipedia admins. That the threat was not against Wikipedia itself is not relevent. I am sorry that you believe WP:LEGAL should not apply here but it does. If you have any evidence of an AARM member issuing a legal threat here on the Wikipedia, please let me know and they too will be banned until the legal threat is withdrawn or the legal action is resolved. Legal threats on CARM message boards or on AARM message boards are outside of our scope, however. --Yamla 20:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diane S is Diane S who "also works with CARM".  I can find no evidence that Diane S works with AARM.  Please provide any such evidence that you have.  If your claim is simply that she is a member at the AARM website, this is completely irrelevant.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not an assumption.  This edit contained a legal threat, and subsequent communication with CARM members has confirmed that CARM has requested that the members edit the article here on the Wikipedia in blatant violation of the block.  Furthermore, a number of accounts became active right around the time of the block and edited the same articles in essentially the same manner.  This is sufficient grounds for a block of these accounts and the block was reviewed by multiple administrators.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link given above is incorrect.  Please see here for the correct link.  Also note that Diane is clearly not talking about personal legal action.  --Yamla 03:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, provide evidence that Diane S works for AARM and has requested that AARM members edit these articles and I will place the block you ask for.  You have provided no evidence that Diane S works for AARM or is empowered to speak for AARM.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, what am I meant to be looking at here?  As to the CARM puppets being abusive, this has been reviewed by multiple admins.  So far, nobody has presented any evidence that AARM has issued a legal threat on the Wikipedia or that subsequent to this threat, AARM encouraged people to violate the ban that was placed.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Diane S works for CARM, as pointed out above.  Other CARM members (here, I mean website members, not CARM employees or board members) have confirmed this.  If hyperbole threatened someone with legal action and we had evidence that hyperbole was a board member or otherwise employed by AARM and we had evidence that hyperbole induced other people to edit to avoid a block, he most certainly would be blocked, as would his sockpuppets.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Diane S does volunteer work as well as 25 or more others, Diane S is not an "employee." There was no person that confirmed Diane S is an employee working for CARM or empowered by CARM to speak on their behalf. It would be a lie and someone giving you false information. She is a volunteer only.  There are also 60 paid forum super members that do not "work" or speak for CARM legal issues, she is not an "employee" of the CARM Board and has never been, that too can be verified by Matt Slick in your writing to carmstuff@yahoo.com. There are only two employees and Diane S is not one of them. Diane S from either forum do not speak for CARM or aarm legalities as a volunteer and that was or is the point. You asked for proof that an aarm member threatened legal recourse and they would be removed as well. You were given a link to a Diane S posting as a member on AARM and a Diane s threatened legal recourse here and now you want employee records or proof that the aarm Diane S speaks for aarm, because there is a Diane s that you thought was an employee of CARM?  Nope, there is no Diane S or Diane S employee of CARM.  Diane S is a "volunteer" and here is the link to the official policy of CARM that "volunteers" do not speak for CARM. http://www.carm.org/boards/boardrules.htm  Section 3:D  "Please recognize that moderators or volunteers do not speak officially on behalf of CARM when they express any religious, political or social view.  The views stated by any moderator on any subject other than the logistics or rules of the boards are purely their opinions and do not represent CARM. When CARM states its official organizational position on any issue, it will be posted on the website, rather than through the use of message boards." And you don't know what Diane  thinks or doesn't think since you have not been in contact with Diane S or Matt Slick in any email verifications. The point is that the name Diane S is a member of both forums and does not work in employment to either. Diane S whether posting here to this discussion message board about legal issues have nothing whatsoever to do with CARM or her membership on their forums or board as a volunteer. The legal issues are with Diane and other family members and aarm libel. Not with CARM and why would CARM have a volunteer speak for CARM's official legal status on this page rather then Matt Slick himself? Unless directed by Matt Slick or the Board of Directors to write something official on the home page or in mail, it is not in anyway CARM speaking until they would make that claim. Diane S did not make any claim to be speaking for CARM officially on this talk page.  Why are you arguing this and just not getting it? Wikipedia blocked other members of CARM that are also not employees of carm simply because they are carm members. CARM does not have a legal situation with anyone as understood.  Diane S. that posted here is not an employee of CARM and if there is a Diane S on both aarm and carm either both should be blocked or no one but Diane S.Interested Party 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not the information I have been provided with.  Additionally, she should realise that when editing an article about CARM and while employed by CARM, she is speaking for CARM.  To use CARM to subsequently induce people to edit the articles in question makes this doubly true.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Okay, perhaps I misunderstood.  With all of the interactions I've had with the CARM users, I always got the impression that they wanted the links removed because the links were to opposing viewpoints.  If the problem is that these are to sites that are not reliable, that is perhaps a different matter.  Please let me be quick to point out that the failure in communication here could be entirely on my side.  I have spent hours and hours on this issue and am tired of the whole thing; mistakes tend to happen in that situation.  Anyway, it may be appropriate to remove links to the message boards for both CARM and AARM.  It is not appropriate, in my opinion, to remove any mention of AARM, however.  They are clearly a group of sufficient notability as CARM itself has an article on them if I remember correctly.  And for the record, I do understand the term "apologist" and have read books published both by Christian apologists and by "atheist apologists", if that's a correct term.  Nothing by Matt Slick, however, nor (afaik) by anyone on AARM.  --Yamla 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Response to above quote. AARM is not a group of notability but only a group of anonymous internet chatters. Please type in the name and all that comes up is a chatroom since that is what they are.  They exist only as a chatroom not as an organization and not even a busy or popular room. They have very few members as a discussion board of anonymous users and that is their only function or existence as pointed out in the posts above. There is no such organization or group as an official AARM, no corporation, nothing. Not even a single webpage article published. It is a discussion chatroom only that any person can set up for free. Matt Slick only responded to their discussion boards by request of carm editors here because wikipedia permitted the "hate" forums to be linked and carm had to somehow address the situation. He simply exposed some of their libel in order to be on record to opposing the nonsense should they continue with their legal threats that were being thrown around by one of their active members at the time of his writing. You may verify this information at any time in writing to Matt at carmstuff@yahoo.com. I guarantee Matt Slick and no one else considers aarm notable and is why carm editors have been trying to get it removed. It is not notable or anything worthy of mention on wikipedia. John Ratcliff the creator himself has stated they should not be mentioned here in an encyclopedia in a recent post on the aarm boards. The boards were started by the person John Ratcliff angry for being banned as a troll from carm. John Ratcliff even admitted to his trolling, talking to himself with several users accounts attempting to annoy Christians, he admits it and that has been documented. He trolled carm was angry when he was caught trolling and breaking the rules in trolling so started his own boards and that is aarm's total existence. CARM has an article to post here only in answer to the ridiculous chatroom being linked. By the way, if you continue to block carm friends you will never resolve this issue to hearing from only aarm editors. If Matt Slick himself were to write here and request the deletions would his opinion be considered or would he be blocked and ignored as well? I am in contact with Mr. Slick and will have him make the request for deletion here as long as he is not going to have his time wasted in being blocked by aarm admins or editorsInterested Party 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confirming that at least Matt Slick considers AARM notable.  You also guarantee that nobody else considers AARM notable, in which case I have to question who are the people who have been considering AARM notable enough to link in to this article.  As to whether Matt Slick is welcome to nominate the article for deletion, he most certainly is and I would not block him for that.  I would block him if he made contentious edits without first achieving consensus.  I would also welcome his comments on the state of the proposed replacement article.  Also, I would appreciate an official statement as to the ongoing legal actions initiated by Diane S.  That is, whether they remain ongoing, whether Diane S remains employed or working with CARM, etc.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interested Party is an account for the sister of Diane_S, and is speaking on behalf of Diane and CARM, who have made legal threats against Wikipedia and/or two of its editors.  She is almost certainly not allowed to edit Wikipedia.  Months and months of the editorial process have led to the consensus that AARM is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but is notable enough to merit mention on the John W. Ratcliff and CARM pages.  These dozen or so single-purpose accounts, generally controlled by Diane, have shown up for one reason only: to try to find a way to whitewash articles about CARM, whether through edit wars, wikilawyering, or legal threats.  Wikipedia policy is crystal-clear here: 1) Wikipedia has articles about notable subjects and will not delete articles at their subjects' requests; and 2) On articles with multiple POVs, each POV is represented.  This doesn't require nearly the verbiage that it's getting.  --Hyperbole 02:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will agree on at least one point here, this doesn't require nearly the verbiage it is getting.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum38/6652.html This link proof that hyperbole himself could be speaking for a Diane S that posts on their forums. Please ask Hyperbole to give evidence and proof that the Diane s blocked from wikipedia is a sister of interested party? It was established that she had a sister to peggy sue but nothing about a Diane S.  Hyperbole is an account listed here by aarm to advertise and edit this article for propaganda purposes. Ask Hyperbole to prove that Diane speaks officially for CARM in edits here. The documentation on CARM states otherwise that there is no personal volunteer that speaks for CARM.  He cannot prove his accusation because she does not speak for CARM in any legal actions. If a person a member of a group it does not indicate they are in any way speaking officially for that group. Hyperbole's statement is not fact more false accusations from the atheist propagandists involved in the edit wars here. CARM has not made legal threats against wikipedia and Matt Slick himself will verify that fact that Diane does not speak for carm should he be personally contacted. Email this address to question Matt Slick at carmstuff@yahoo.com. Hyperbole is again posting false information that is a lie and his attempt is to have CARM editors removed for the actions of a single person that posts on aarm or carm. To correct Hyperbole, the POV is to be from reliable sources pro and con and not from discussion board annoymous user account such as hyperbole, urbie, diane s all members of anonymous users of aarm. If carm were to speak officially its written policy is that it is on its home pages only and is made clear on the CARM website. Diane S does not at anytime speak for CARM no matter who this hyperbole accuses. This is the reason he is involved to personal issues with Diane S as to his continuous false accusations. No one has edited or attempted to whitewash the article. The article is being edited by neutral parties and obviously Mr. Hyperbole and Urbie are not happy about it as expected.Interested Party 02:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that no one has edited or attempted to whitewash this article beggers belief.  Similarly, that the article is being edited by neutral parties is blatantly false, as the history of edits shows over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.  --Yamla 03:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the last few days and the new draft. Read the words again slowly. "The article IS being edited by neutral parties"...any idiot knows the edit wars here for the last two years. I don't see anyone from carm objecting to Justins new draft but the aarm persons.Interested Party 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interested Party, didn't you claim that TomS was your brother-in-law? Did you not write this? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AARM&diff=prev&oldid=21468418
Urbie 13:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Urbie. I sensed there was some dishonesty from that editor. ZincOrbie 16:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're welcome, ZincOrbie. Please notice that Interested Party continues to evade my question.Urbie 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for what? He posted a link about Peggy Sue's brother in law. I am sure there are many different relatives of Peggy and Tom and interested Party, sisters, daughters various aunts, neighbors and uncles.  Are you going to ask for the whole world to be blocked that may know Diane S or Interested party.  Where is the name Diane S posted in the link that Urbie pasted here? It is stated above by Interested Pary. "It was established that she had a sister to peggy sue but nothing about a Diane S." And the link of states Interested Party is Peggy Sue's sister. Where does it say that about Diane S.? The point is that Diane S registered here a few months ago and is blocked, so what? Who is asking for her to be unblocked? I think it states above she expected to be blocked. It doesn't matter if urbie posts every brother, sister or distant relative of Peggy Sue, she isn't here and what does that have to do with what I said. Diane S may be suing the whole world but that has nothing to do with Matt Slick or CARM and it is not stated anywhere here that CARM has a legal issue with wikipedia editors. These various rabbit trails mean nothing. Show us a link or published statement from CARM that they are pursuing legal actions right now. And quit wasting the time here with Peggy's sisters. Who cares? I was told that Urbie is the suspected person impersonating Diane S. on the aarm forums. Maybe urbie is Peggy too?Interested Party 20:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interested Party, could you please answer the question? Did you or did you not write the following? 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AARM&diff=prev&oldid=21468418
"To the administrator Will, I am not Tom S. actually he is my brother-in-law. I am editor Interested Party and you have blocked three different people. This will be reported. Interested Party"Urbie 20:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Interested Party, Diane would speak on behalf of CARM since she sits as a director on the board of directors of CARM.
http://www.carm.org/index/faq.htm
Tent-ripper 14:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: A more direct link showing Diane's role as Vice President of the board of directors of CARM: http://www.carm.org/carm/board/board.htm
Tent-ripper 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes she sits on the board of Directors with several others as a volunteer and administor, so? She is not the president of the Board. A person sitting on a Board does not speak for the board unless the Board consensus and voting on any or all business. If Diane S or other board members should speak officially for that Board it would be stated by the organization in a formal or official notice or by an Attorney representing that Board. Are you implying that whenever a Diane S posts on the internet in any place as opinion that she would be speaking for the rest of the Board of directors? She has a vote on the Board not the authority over the organization: Are you implying that she may not give opinions of her own or have a personal attorney? Are you implying that she does not have a private life outside of her volunteer position on a ministry board? That is absurd and ridiculous. CARM's stated position: http://www.carm.org/boards/boardrules.htm Already addressed above. Section 3:D  "Please recognize that moderators or volunteers do not speak officially on behalf of CARM when they express any religious, political or social view.  The views stated by any moderator on any subject other than the logistics or rules of the boards are purely their opinions and do not represent CARM. When CARM states its official organizational position on any issue, it will be posted on the website, rather than through the use of message boards."I find it interesting that people here from aarm that have no idea what is going on in the personal life of Diane S, that have no knowledge of the facts involved and no documentation anywhere of Matt Slick or CARM suggesting that Diane S is speaking for carm when posting on the internet. There is no statement publically written anywhere that CARM has taken any legal recourse against any individuals.Interested Party 20:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CARM specifically states that Diane S is one of four people to run CARM.  Her threat of legal action was clearly not her talking personally.  Why you are bringing in CARM's Bulletin Board rules to a discussion that has nothing to do with CARM's bulletin board is beyond me.  We aren't on CARM's bulletin board.  She was not making a religious, political, or social statement.  Give it up.  Diane S has not seen fit to retract her threat of legal action and the statement was made in the context of edits to this article and was clearly made with her acting in her role as one of the people who runs CARM.  If this is not the case, she had a conflict of interest and I would rather assume good faith and grant that she was not engaged in any such conflict.  --Yamla 20:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Look Yamla, this is my last time saying this to you. Diane S and a sister have been personally libeled by aarm members that also stalk this article. I have personal contact with CARM ministry. It is "individuals" that have been slandered, people that are pursuing legal recourse and not any organization. CARM is not pursuing legal action against anyone, Diane S is. If you want to call me a liar go for it. But you are wrong. A board member has a vote they do not speak for the board. I know the situation from the inside and have spoken to the individuals involved. Block all people from editing here that are carm supporters, go for it. It doesn't really matter what excuse you want to use the bias is noted. Aarm Atheists are welcomed here to sockpuppet, revert edits constantly, your words above and carm sockpuppets are not permitted to do reverts. Aarm atheists impersonating Diane S on their forums daily are permitted to edit here but Carm Christians are not. Carm supporters are telling you the truth, there is no legal action from CARM. The only persons making such claims are Aarm atheists. An individual Diane S and sister have stated they may be taking legal recourse against members of aarm, a fact not a lie. CARM never made such a statement anywhere. You are wrong and will find out soon enough. Actually I hope CARM does get itself a lawyer to deal with aarm and would encourage it. And this is no longer interesting. Interested Party 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Diane sure seems to think that she represents CARM, not just her individual opinion. These are her own words:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Diane_S&diff=83567829&oldid=83566517
"We have no problem with criticisms or disagreements from reliable sources, we are an apologetics group and welcome disagreement, it is what we do. The users of that forum are atheists removed from our forums because of their 'personal attacks' and insults. We should not be forced to be slandered, libeled, numerous copyright infringements, permitted in the CARM article wikipedia, which has repeatedly gone unchecked even when we have requested the admins to do so. We have no choice BUT to pursue legal action should this continue."Urbie 20:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and so what is your point? Yes the we are individual persons being slandered, individual persons being libeled, personal copyright infringements. See the words in quote above, that you paste. 'Personal'attacks and libel.' I hate to break this news to you Urbie sweetie, but if Diane S's name is libeled she must personally sue, what does CARM have to do with attacks on her character? Diane has been active in other ministries in a leadership capacity, it is their names being libeled. As a matter of fact the libel has an effect more on their employment or professional license then on what is going on with their volunteer work. If another members name is libeled whether administrator or volunteer he would personally sue for the attacks on his personal name or reputation. And any of the other board members are no more responsible for Diane S's legal issues then Diane S would be for their personal libel situations. Yes organizations can sue for libeling the organization collectively but if the attacks and libel are on the persons by name or even if just initials and knowing who they are referring to, which is the situation on aarm then it is a private citizen legal claim. The libel occured on aarm by individuals, not on carm website. I suggest you go back and read the documentation from CARM last year in their AARM article linked here. Go down the list and see what you find. It is the person being libeled. If Billy Graham and his associates were to be personally libeled by name, it is Billy Graham not the organization he belongs to that files claim. Better try again, or do some research into libel laws. If you sue someone Urbie for libeling you, it is not aarm that will be suing, because you might be on its board has nothing whatsoever to do with persons libeling you. You could be on the board of several ministries or churches and that does not matter.  You see that is the problem with you aarm people, you assume probono carm ministry lawyers, you assume that you can libel people by name simply because they volunteer for a ministry and because carm is a poor website ministry, you believe you can do and say as you please. Think again sweetie pie that is not how it works. If you are Libeling CARM then CARM could collectively though they have never stated they are. That we is a group of several people libeled by name on aarm and each and every one of those people rich or poor can at any time decide to pursue personal attornies. Diane S may be on many boards and her sister or husband as well, if each one libeled personally they may take actionInterested Party 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong and wrong. Their responsibilities on any corporation do not include tolerating their personal names being libeled. Libel is a slanderous attack on their persons as occurs on aarm. Obvious to anyone that understands libel and as stated in urbies paste. It is "personal" not corporate they are addressing. One has nothing to do with the other to what board they sit on when persons are libeled by their personal name. A person sitting on a church board of directors is not speaking for his church whenever that person speaks.Interested Party 22:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I believe you are wrong. The quotation says "we are an apologetics group". The "we" clearly refers to CARM. Urbie 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to Yamla here. Page is slow needs archive 

message: Although an attorney would be best to address this, I have some slight knowledge of general U.S. libel laws because of a biography I was once involved in and some protective research we conducted. In short, libel can be proven in court only if certain criteria are met. Mainly:
* Intentionally misprepresenting facts about a person in order to cause them personal or financial harm.
* An unknowing yet blatant disregard of the truth, also to cause a person personal or financial harm. This can occur if a disreputable journalist runs with faulty information without properly verifying the facts (although a news organization should correct such problems before they become libellous).
So if the alleged "libellous" information is proven accurate, there is not much recourse - even if there is malicious intent. Also, people of notoriety enjoy less legal protection because they are subject to public scrutiny due to their position, and as a result, mistaken reporting. Whether or not board members of CARM qualify as having notoriety is questionable. ZincOrbie 00:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a somewhat moot point, since no one from CARM has identified any material they consider libelous.  They just vaguely assert that libel exists somewhere, and that they intend to sue someone over it.  Both Wikipedia and AARM have requested that CARM specify what they consider libelous, so it can be reviewed to see if it merits removal.  CARM has made no response to these requests.  They have certainly not given Wikipedia a basis for altering the article.  --Hyperbole 01:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Assuming there is "libel" on AARM, a correction has been offered and not accepted? Yes, then my comment is definitely moot. Thanks. ZincOrbie 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libel 

message: I discovered irrefutable evidence that Diane S was once again using sockpuppets in blatant violation of her ban from editing the Wikipedia.  Essentially all the pro-CARM comments were from definite sockpuppets or meat puppets.  The only account I am unsure about is "Interested Party", though even that account was engaging in trolling.  Wikipedia policy when discovering that a user set up abusive sockpuppets to get around a ban is to remove all contributions by that sockpuppet.  Instead, I archived the comments to /Archive 3.  This includes comments made by people who are not sockpuppets, and perhaps includes comments made before the ban.  As such, most, though not all, of the comments in Archive 3 should be ignored.  It stuns me that this editor continues blatantly violating Wikipedia policy as well as attempting to misdirect other editors as to the nature of the statements made.  That said, there is no evidence that Matt Slick is directly or indirectly involved in this abuse, only Diane Se.  However, Diane S is a Vice President at CARM.  Unfortunately, due to this chronic abuse, any future pro-CARM statements made here must be looked on with suspicion.  This is sad as it makes it harder to achieve a neutral article.  --Yamla 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interested Party has been blocked indefinitely for trolling.  An administrator previously determined this account was a sockpuppet of a known sockpuppet of Diane S.  Additionally, she has threatened that Diane will continue to violate the ban placed on her account for her violation of WP:LEGAL by using abusive sockpuppets and meatpuppets.  I will no longer have any tolerance for these continued attacks.  --Yamla 01:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my sympathy, Yamla. What has been displayed here in recent days is astounding. Their determined underhandedness - and taunting - has completely undermined their credibility for me. Perhaps once the merger is complete you can lock it up for a couple years. ZincOrbie 02:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued abuse 

message: Included the updated numbers on forums and a bit more explanation to Ratcliff. He does admit trolling and tantalizing Christians on carm so included that info. It is sourced to his own words that are linked to the aarm chat boards that have still not been removed.  Interested Party 04:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited article 

message: Reminder, there's work being done on a replacement for this article at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Mergedraft.  --Yamla 05:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added my contribution to the article: I made half a dozen non-controversial improvements, but also added back the section about controversy on CARM's forums.  It seems to me that the information is sourced, relevant, and notable in the context of the article, and there's no reason it shouldn't be there.  --Hyperbole 05:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge draft 

message: Upon discovering that the CARM website features a section devoted to Matt Slick's poems, I thought that this should be noted under the section of the wikipedia article devoted to Slick's writings.  I was told that this is not notable, but am having difficulty seeing why it wouldn't be.  What does everyone think?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hearsayheresy (talk • contribs) .
:An easy test of whether something is notable is to see if anyone has noted it. Have Slick's poems been published by unrelated publishers? Have they been reviewed or mentioned by poetry journals? Any other references to them? -Will Beback · † · 01:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it notable that Slick has composed poems? 

message: Is CARM itself a reliable source for citation in other articles?  --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CARM is a reliable source for statements they make.  So, it would be reasonable to say, "CARM says 'ducks can fly'" along with a citation on their web site.  This is not sufficient to source the claim, "ducks can fly", however.  As to a claim like "AARM claims ducks like elephants", CARM cannot serve as a reliable source for that claim.  If, however, CARM has an article which states something about another group, the sources CARM itself uses may prove to be reliable enough for use on the Wikipedia.  If I have not cleared this up sufficiently, please contact me on my talk page or through email.  --Yamla 05:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CARM as a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] 

message: I've readded the paragraph on the argument that happened between the moderators, because i think it's important to note the critiscm that many people having been saying against carm. It's becoming a "yes, whatever you want Slick" place according to some moderators and friends.
I don't think the paragraph is in perfect wikipedia format, so feel free to edit it.
The original paragraph looks like this:
In 2007, a dispute occurred between the members of CARM chat, resulting in some moderators and normal members being banned, and the ministry becoming more inclined to agree with Slick on any issue. The problem apparently began when a moderator known as 'Thomas' was interrupted by another member 'Eric_landstrom' (an Armenian), during an explanation on a theological issue, resulting in a debate violating Slick's rules on moderator's behaviour. After 'Eric_landstrom' threatened to ban 'Thomas', 'Thomas' left. Later on that night, a similar dispute occured on a grander scale involving many regular members and moderators; 'Javy', 'Simply_Nikki', 'Dave-Das', 'Julie', 'Andrew', who were among the group, argued with CARM's vice president, Diana, resulting in many of the group being banned. Many of the remaining then left CARM in protest, such as 'Reformed_Baptist'. Matt Slick, having heard about several theological debates for a while, renamed all the moderators in the format of "ModeratorNumber", to help prevent moderators from communicating with each other, and so help prevent disputes. Moderators' status in the chatroom where also made invisible. One moderator, who would wish to remain anonymous, said that she had become a "yes-um" person, due to Slick "tightening" the ministry."
the Truth seeker 11:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Forum drama does not belong here. Especially copyright violation forum drama. From "islamhope.net". Whatever that is. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderator incident 

message: Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Mergedraft still exists but seems to be mainly dormant. Is it still a draft of anything, or should it be deleted or moved out of article space (e.g. to someone's user space)? --Delirium 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fairly sure that the main article was replaced with the mergedraft several months ago (perhaps a year ago) and no one actually got around to deleting the mergedraft.  Someone should probably do that, since it's just leftover cruft at this point.  --Hyperbole 04:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  status of the merge draft? 

message: I've come here from seeing a discussion at AN/I. Not knowing about this organization, I checked its web site--and compared it with the article.  I am struck by the tone of the article, which seems to present the organization in an almost entirely positive light, omitting some matters which might be interpreted otherwise--such as its inclusion of Roman Catholicism and Universalism  among the "cults" it opposes, in the same manner as it discusses Wicca.    I see a quote at the end, paraphrasing that list, but   omitting the RCs,and I wonder at the objectivity of that source also. In general, I wonder about the actual independence and reliability of quite a few of the sources.  I also wonder about the use of "cult", which it is using in a manner different from the various ordinary uses in English, but a way that is specific to a group of religious movements among which this one is intended--surely there should be some indication of this.  I have no particular bias for or against any particular form of the religions it discusses--I am concerned about clarity of presentation and apparent fairness.  I'm aware that some earlier versions were biased in the opposite direction, even more strongly.    DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some good points, thank you. I will expand on the criticism of the organization. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Placed criticism by Bromley in its own paragraph for more prominence . Expanded a great deal on amount of text and prominence given to criticism of the organization by Cowan . Cirt (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I will add from these sources. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added references to the cut-and-paste evangelism, and the site's views on Roman Catholicism. We can still add info , but as far as I am concerned we do not need the POV tag any more, now that this information is in the article, and bearing in mind that Cirt too has added scholarly criticism since the tag was placed. --JN466 20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the tag should now be removed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've dropped DGG a note on his talk page asking him whether he agrees as well. --JN466 21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that they do not consider the Catholics to be authentic Christians is at least mentioned; there remains one key thing to say in the description as well as referred to approving  in one of the commentaries: their anti-Islam position. Perhaps the best way would be to give the list of the major religious groups they oppose, using the website list as a source.  That will do for the moment to remove the NPOV tag, but what is now needed is  editing for clarity. I think the most needed step would be at the commentary, making clear at the beginning of each paragraph what the overall position of the person is towards this group & what the person's general orientation to such matters is--this is all the expression of opinion and Then there is copyediting needed for conciseness--such as not repeating the full name of the group over and over. But I like doing such work, and I may come back for that.    DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be best to find such things mentioned in secondary sources, as opposed to primary, if possible. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cowan here quotes Slick, who refers to "cultists, atheists, muslims, relativists, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, etc." That covers a good part of what is on the Cut and Paste resources page; I propose we cite that. --JN466 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds appropriate for inclusion. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the other groups, cited to that source, and removed the tag.  --JN466 12:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: My feeling is that this section is a bit large, and a bit generically-named for ease of reading. Can anybody think of some thematic subheadings that we can divide it up into? I've tried, but nothing comes immediately to mind. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Open to suggestions. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Commentary' section 

message: This article shows a lack of quality by the fact that the "comments" section is somehow off-topic and grossly long compared to the actual article. Also it shows bias by using the neutral headline "comments" and then starting with a long criticism, which is more directed at counter-cult then at the site itself.10:35, 25 August 2011 (EET)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.60.61 (talk)  
:I agree. It's cute how the first paragraph has several lines of directly quoted criticism and then just "Slick issued a written response to Cowan's article" followed by more criticism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.238.244 (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: CARM is a highly criticized website, especially the forums, for rampant inaccuracy and borderline hate-speech and bigotry.  Per wiki policy, we weigh articles according to the weight of outside reliable sources.  The weight of these sources is reflected in the weight of the article.  Really, if anything, we're going too soft on CARM.Farsight001 (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of quality and bias