Talk:Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry/Archive 3

Merge with Matt Slick
It has been suggested that the Matt Slick article be merged with Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. (Please see Talk:Matt_Slick.) 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)
 * Done. -Will Beback 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"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)
 * 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)"

(For record and documentation update purposes, in 2007, AARM server wowbob did request shut down of the AARM forums due to the refusal of the owner J.Ratcliff to moderate according to rules of the server, the numerous complaints of libel on the AARM forums, not moderated according to wowbob rules and policies) No further legal action necessary per DS and family, matter resolved per server policies for AARM owner to remove content or shut down forums....DS did not become employee till 2007 also repeatedly stated in 2006, per records and documentation, the requests of the CARM "sockpuppets" were legitimate though continuously refused by wiki admin)

Many of the pro-CARM comments below are from established sockpuppets of Diane S. This user continued using sockpuppets after being banned from the Wikipedia for a legal threat. In general, such comments are to be stricken from the page and from the history in order not to encourage continued abuse. However, this is really too much effort in this case, and so I am simply archiving most of the comments. --Yamla 02:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this a coincidence?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

'''"Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Promotional articles about yourself, your friends, your company or products; or articles written as part of a marketing or promotional campaign, may be deleted in accordance with our deletion policies. For more information, see Wikipedia:Spam." AARM posters and members editing here, spamming the CARM and Matt slick articles with their advertisements links to atheist website forums.'''Diane S 07:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Diane, perhaps you should read Sock_puppet, 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)


 * 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)
 * You're blatantly soliciting single-purpose editors for the purpose of evading the 3RR; that violates Sock_puppet. 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Merge with Matt Slick
It has been suggested that the Matt Slick article be merged with Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. (Please see Talk:Matt_Slick.) 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)
 * Done. -Will Beback 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When is this article going to be unblocked? There has not been activity and the attempts to merge are going no where with a block in place.Tom S 48 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will unblock this article now. Any instance of people substantially altering the tone without first discussing their edits here and coming to a consensus will result in an immediate reprotection and a block of the people involved.  I don't care whether people are trying to make the article more pro-CARM or anti-CARM.  Any substantial change to the tone of the article.  Wikipedia is built on consensus and this single article has caused me literally hours of grief.  --Yamla 04:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Yamla.


 * Folks, I hereby present the rough draft for proposed merge. I've dome my best to keep an even tone, noting both the pro-CARM and anti-CARM point of view, however, because of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I've taken a severe meat-cleaver to both articles to come up with the finished result. Frankly, there was a lot more material here than is actually necessary for either article.


 * Now, truth to tell, I really don't expect either side to be happy with the results. But I'm hoping the proposed merge will be a starting place where all of us can come to some form of consensus. Remeber, please: this discussion is not for CARM's benefit, or for Matt Slicks, or for AARM's-- this discussion is SOLELY AND SIMPLY for Wikipedia's benefit, and an examination of how we can make an excellent article that meets the guidelines. Justin Eiler 04:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your edit is a needed improvement on both articles and it has been here before to the CARM article but if you cannot lock it then it will not remain clean. A link to Slick's biography on the CARM website should be included with his name till the article can be deleted and updated information on numbers to closer to almost 11,000 forum participants since Jan. I firmly suggest in agreement with most CARM supporters that both articles be deleted completely from wikipedia as the most appropriate action considering the history of the two articles and constant edit wars. It would help to have the support or nomination for deletion by one of the more "neutral" editors. The articles need to be removed, gone. We have been to this point several times and it leads to more of the same. Editors or admins attempting to deal with the disputes have removed and trimmed the article down to pretty much what you have written in removing the unnecessary gossip about who is banned and why from the discussion boards. Something that obviously occurs with all discussion forums and expected to users being removed for rule violations, and not needed to include in an Encyc. article.  In a week or so after the admins clean it up as you have attempted to do in a great job, the group from the atheist AARM discussion forums, hyperbole, urbie and friends, (as the history reads) will return to put it all back to promotion of their atheists websites and their personal agendas. An admin Irmgard did an excellent job to dealing with the disputes. Irmgard left, they put all their garbage right back into the article. The edit wars will begin again and is guaranteed. The only way to stop all of it is to delete the article completely.  CARM and their supporters do not want it here at all and will support that effort to deletion.


 * It is reasonable to suggest that this article be deleted. Please see WP:AFD to learn how you can nominate the article for deletion.  As far as I can see, nobody has yet nominated this article.  --Yamla 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The propagandist editors will want to continue to use the article to promote their agenda and will object to the many criticisms removed or their discussion boards removed. They want the article here to advertise and want the links to their discussion boards and criticism section to be the largest portion of the article. Here is link to the AARM users and editors here using this article and soliciting AARM atheists and group to edit here. http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum6/1981.html


 * Note that I am not a member of CARM or of AARM. However, note that it is reasonable for AARM to solicit people to edit this article, just as it was appropriate when CARM did it.  It's not reasonable to make legal threats as CARM has done, however.  Actualy, it is reasonable to make legal threats but the result is that you will be banned from editing.  This ban also extends to sockpuppets and meatpuppets.  --Yamla 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To Yamla: If it is reasonable for AARM to solicit people to edit, then why were the CARM people asked to "swear" they were not solicited to post to this article? Why were they told it was "sock puppetry" against the rules and they were not permitted to edit as "sock puppets." But it is now ok for AARM to solicit "sock puppets," when the evidence is shown here that AARM solicited puppets, they did solicit help and now the rules change?  I think you better explain because this is not what the CARM supporters have been told in emails from wiki Admins. They were told if they were solicited or invited to edit here it made them sock puppets and against the rules to edit these articles. Will you also be asking AARM puppets to swear they were not solicited or banning them to? Someone here had better clear this up please. The AARM people here are constantly attacking CARM supporters as sock puppets, CARM supporters banned here as sock puppets but Atheist AARM puppets are welcomed? As for the legal threats and there is no legal action against wikipedia by CARM at all. You better clear this one up as well. People from the CARM discussion forums should not be banned from editing this article if AARM people are not banned. As far as users on the CARM forums, they would have nothing to do with any legal issues involving the CARM ministry or involved in anyway if there were ever to be any legal issue. You are saying AARM may solicit help, may threaten legal issues may use sock puppets, it is posted all over the AARM forums to legal threats of CARM and the AARM atheists puppets are welcome here as "reasonable" but CARM discussion board users are not permitted here? Shall I link here the legal threats from the AARM boards? Will you permit CARM users to edit here or not and if so then you should remove all AARM users as well for the same "sock puppetry" and for threats of legal action.Tom S 48 20:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * I am aware the CARM administration and supporters are appealing now in writing to wikipedia through the channels, with petitions to have the articles completely removed because of the aforementioned reoccuring situations of edit wars. It certainly would move quicker to have the editors here vote to delete the article. An organization such as CARM in the ministry of "fighting" cults or atheist political groups will always have an enemy seeking to find a way to attack. An open edited encylopedia is simply an invitation and easy tool for such groups to use as the history of this article in evidence and as noted to the negative publicity given wikipedia because of this type of editing. This article is the true evidence of why wikipedia is constantly criticized. Atheists that have openly criticized the Christian ministry are here writing and editing the article continuously? What is their motive? The concern to some editing here is not NPOV but advertising their opposing views in using the CARM or Slick article or reporting people as "sock puppets," violating the 3RR and whatever they can to promote their own POV.


 * This is one point of view. An opposing point of view may be (and remember, I am not associated with either CARM or AARM and don't claim to speak for either group) that CARM has attempted to silence any opposing viewpoints in this article, preferring that this article depict only one point of view rather than presenting both points of view.  Additionally, though I could be wrong on this, nobody has ever nominated this article for deletion.  --Yamla 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To Yamla: No you are misunderstanding completely on that point but maybe because you are not aware of the history or what the CARM ministry is about and what the true issue is with the articles on wikipedia. CARM absolutely does not want to silence opposing viewpoints. We could link 10 podcasts here by a Mormon, Roman Catholic priest and apologist with opposing viewpoints in debate with Matt Slick on the Radio. By all means, let's use opposing viewpoints from named verifiable sources. That is incorrect to say CARM does not want opposing views here. CARM disagrees only to unsourced unverifable anonymous user websites about namecalling and slander posted in this article.  Please let me try to explain one more time. CARM prides itself on teaching Christians how to respond to opposing viewpoints that is the work they do. It is an "Apologetics" ministry, that is what apologist do to dealing openly and honestly on a daily basis with opposing views. That is the work Matt Slick has done for 25 years and has been very successful with the CARM website. CARM welcomes ten thousand or more users on the discussion forums to write their "opposing viewpoints" and CARM itself encourages opposing viewpoints so that CARM may teach Christians how to answer those in opposition. Guests of opposing viewpoints welcomed and invited on the radio show, many papers written on the website in discussion with those of opposing viewpoints, Mormons, Atheists, Roman Catholics have all been guests on the radio shows to argue their disagreements with CARM or Matt Slick.  CARM itself, in its many articles on the CARM homepages will publish opposing viewpoints and responses to the opposing viewpoints. CARM has not asked ever that the wikipedia article remove all opposing viewpoints and that has been the problem with explaining to the admin editors here from the beginning as the admins simply do not understand the objection or that AARM links are not to real people with actual opposing views. CARM simply wants the sources to be linked to verified individual named persons writing opposing views, not links to anonymous namecalling and slander. Put the opposing viewpoints here by all means. But please use reliable, named individuals in the links for opposition and not links to vulgar chatrooms.
 * The issue is with the links to the AARM anonymous discussion chat boardsor unverifiable anonymous personal websites linked here as sources. Linking to unknown anonymous persons and libelous websites is CARM's objection and has been their only objection. They do not want criticism removed but want it to be to a reliable source. Why is that so difficult to get across in these edit wars. CARM would welcome links to papers written by the opposition and CARM would then respond openly but they cannot respond to people name calling and slandering, that is not apologetics to link to "Jerry Springer" type chatrooms in an Encyl? Even on the Jerry Springer show the people will at least be identified and using a real name. Name calling, libel or slander on annoymous chatboards is not an opposing viewpoint and wikipedia firmly instructs admins and editors not to permit unreliable sources or libel and no where in the rules does wikipedia state that is permitted to link to vulgar libelous, namecalling or slandering material as long as it it is just an external link. Again CARM did not object to opposing viewpoints in this article, will not ever object to opposing viewpoints, welcomes opposing viewpoints but asked it only be to verifiable sources please. And will continue with the editing to the appropriate websites until the admins and editors here apply the rules to this article as they do to other ministry articles. There are no atheists "hate" sites linked in other Christian ministry articles, so why would such discussion boards be linked to the CARM ministry article? Are the atheist discussion boards linked on Billy Graham's articles here? Why not? They hate him too. Link please to the website of persons signing their true names and to facts please and remove the links to the vulgar chatrooms. If John Ratcliff founder of AARM chatboards wants to write a paper in criticism of CARM with his name and published on the internet, CARM would not ever oppose that entry or his POV. By all means include Mr. Ratcliff's paper that is not a link to a chatroom.  CARM had no objection to the author Cowan linked or sourced on wiki or others that are actual named persons with opposing views but simply objects to the links to anonymous discussion forum users or to personal websites of unnamed persons, links to AARM that are simply about mockery, name calling, foul language and slander should be removed.
 * In fact to prove to you Yamla the unreliability of annoymous discussion boards, we can set up a discussion forum in an hour, sign up 20 anonymous people calling everyone names with slander and get ourselves linked here? Shall I do that to prove to you the point we are trying to make. I will do it and place it here in a link by tomorrow if that is what it will take to get the editors here to understand that links should also be to a reliable source. Anonymous discussion boards attacking people by name should not be linked here and that has been the only argument from CARM and I will repeat this as many times as necessary so that admins such as yourself will finally understand. CARM does not object to criticisms. Also an example was referred to in wiki rules about unreliable sources or links to any person putting up a webpage for references should not be used, in less then three minutes I could put up a webpage or discussion page on my website saying "Hyperbole the wikipedia wannabe admin is crazy, a liar and fraud," could publish that article in minutes and then put the link here in external links? Shall I prove that as well? Is that a reliable source of information on the person hyperbole? That is why CARM supporters and CARM want the articles deleted because in 2 years time it is the article being used for propaganda links to unknown persons that we cannot get removed and then being accused of not wanting other points of view which is a false accusations. As evidenced to the link of AARM posted here to their anonymous boards of namecalling and libelous attacks by unnamed, anonymous users is what CARM objects to. Put the criticisms here of real people with some authority on the subject or delete this mess once and for all. The links to the AARM boards should not be included in this article, should never have been included in this article, would not be included in other ministry articles. Anonymous users on a discussion board are not reliable sources and any person that thinks it through will understand that this article is being used for propaganda purposes, it is not about opposing views and should this article remain it will eventually be linked to every whacko on the internet that hates Christian ministries. The article on wikipedia is linked to annoymous users with many different user accounts in a chat discussion board referring to CARM administrators as "insane" or statements to the founder being "mentally ill" and used as the source of criticism? Why on earth would such nonsense be linked in an Ency. article? CARM welcomes opposing views, will always welcome opposing views and that has never been the request of CARM or their supporters. As a matter of fact Yamla, CARM would welcome a discussion with you as an interview on the radio show to examine this further. Consider it an invitation to be a guest on live radio. Want to talk about it openly and get this done? Please consider yourself as a wikipedia admin formally invited to explain to to a large radio audience why links to libelous slanderous anonymous discussion board chatroom of unnamed persons with 5 -10 users accounts each, linked here with the evidence of libel right in the link posted here, should be considered a reliable source of information on criticism of a Christian organization as a wikipedia standard? And you are not the only person that is truly tired of all of this. Please help us get the articles deleted please or have the courage to explain on radio to everyone why AARM atheist members and users may sock puppet one another here and have through out the history of these articles and CARM supporters may not and are banned for doing what AARM has done for over a year and why anonymous users on an atheist "hate" sites, or it could be one anonymous user with many user accounts,  are permitted to link their garbage in a Christian ministry as a reliable source of criticism?Tom S 48 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Another question. If another group were to do an antiAARM discussion forum exactly as the type linked here for AARM, would that "opposing" view and discussion room be permitted a link here too? If opposing views to discussion boards are welcomed here then you would welcome the anti-AARM forum links here as well.Tom S 48 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware that AARM has a page on the Wikipedia. If they do, it would be entirely reasonable and appropriate to provide a link to CARM on that article.  In fact, I believe it would actually be required.  This is answering a slightly different one than you posed.  You asked if a link to a forum would be appropriate and I answered that a link to a web site in opposition would be appropriate.  See my comments above concerning forums.  --Yamla 20:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason that organizations like CARM should not have an article in an open edit Encylopedia, unless written by scholars only interested in the content rather then their own agenda is because of this type of edit war. One need only read the edit history of the two articles and the names editing in the list. This is not rocket science folks and they are transparent. The person responding here already to disagree, hyperbole, is a professed atheist/Liberal and has this continuing obsessive interest to editing a Christian ministry article, read the history and ask yourself what is his interest in this Christian ministry article?  It cannot be more obvious to the agenda and it will continue to the edit wars until someone deletes the articles completely.


 * You misunderstand Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Please read WP:NPOV.  This article is not neutral if it only presents CARM's viewpoint.  It is neutral if it presents CARM's viewpoint and the viewpoint of people who oppose CARM.  --Yamla 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been here and have read every rule and guideline concerning NPOV and agree with the NPOV and explained above in detail in a response to you. This is not and never was about criticism or the "other" POV. It is about the sources used for the opposing view. We welcome the "other" POV with open arms. From a RELIABLE source.Tom S 48 20:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I also noted one needed correction to the merge, CARM does not refer to Catholics as a "cult." They are identified as a religion and some catholics christians but not a cult as defined by CARM to what is a cult. The RCC is not included in their cult list. I can source that if you need it.  As for hyperbole's unsourced comment below. CARM's discussion forums are  popular but certainly not "much of CARM's notbility." The comment is a contradiction to his insisting and suggesting the forums are criticized as being "unfair" to banning a couple atheists two years ago or certain obnoxious universalists in the article, and then he turns around and claim they boards are the "notibility." CARM's home page articles are its notibility and the stats reveal that fact. Obviously forums that were banning everyone unfairly would not be popular forums so which is it? This type of contradiction in their words is what has been going on over a year or more here. They want to criticize the forums and then praise the forums as the most notable? The reason is to justify linking the AARM forums that have about 10 users on line a day and they want the free advertisment here. The CARM forums are popular because they are open to all opinions and ideas within rules, and many atheists still post on CARM. Just as wikipedia has rules so do CARM forums but the forums are not the CARM ministry and simply a small part of the ministry which is mainly focused on the home page articles and hits, CARM schools, podcasts and radio shows. Again removing the criticisms of who was banned and why from the article is appropriate. I appreciate your edit and merge but please go further to trimming and remove the links to the AARM discussion boards and then please nominate this article and the Slick article for complete deletion along with deletion of links to nonsense discussion boards of an average of 10 users on line daily. Maybe in another year or so someone can try again but not while this AARM group is around. They will not stop their editing and propaganda and CARM will not stop objecting till the article remains Neutral.Tom S 48 06:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that certainly abridges both articles severely. I do think that the banning of all mention of Universalism at CARM, and the 2004 exodus of atheists and liberal Christians from the CARM forums, merits some kind of mention.  Considering that much of CARM's notability stems from its forums, I think these events are probably more notable than Douglas Cowan's passing mention of CARM, regardless of his own personal notability.  I should probably also point out that Tom S 48 is an account for the husband of the banned user Diane_S, and she has admitted that she uses his account as a sockpuppet  --Hyperbole 07:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I should probably also point out that hyperbole and urbie are sock puppets and members of the AARM website using each other and other AARM members to control the edits here for almost 2 years. Here is the link to the proof of the AARM sock puppetry. I have been here before with this character. http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum6/1981.htmlTom S 48 07:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The link proves nothing of the sort. Tom's accusation of sockpuppetry is baseless.Urbie 15:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Yamla here. Page is slow needs archive

 * 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)

Response to Yamla quote above. The pages above would not load properly for me to respond there so copied it to a new discussion. We do have several errors and serious problems that should be addressed in your statements noted. Yes there is evidence. First off you are going to have to identify who is this Diane s person? Are you aware that Diane S is both an active member of aarm and carm on their member lists.


 * 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)

Secondly, where did carm actually make a legal threat since I cannot find that on any of the pages here? Since I do not see carm or Matt Slick posting on this page seems there is simply an assumption that carm people of thousands may be blocked and are responsible for legal comments from a Diane S person whoever that may be? From what I can see the "carm" people were reverting the aarm people edits and even warning given to at least one aarm puppet by the admin here for violating a 3RR and have been using impersonators here or on aarm so you do not know who or which Diane S threatened a lawyer as this Diane S person is actively involved on both websites and there are accounts on both discussion boards. The aarm users here are also "puppets" of a Diane S on aarm that may have threatened legal recourse and are permitted to revert and recruit help and still active here but the carm people were "abusive" for reversing the edits by aarm and removed because they may or may not know a Diane S?


 * 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)


 * 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)

Third, since this Diane S threatened legal recourse and all carm friends were blocked and Diane S is also an active member on both aarm and carm then the parties involved with the legal action from both aarm and carm should be blocked as you stated you would do with evidence. Yamla stated: ''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.'' http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum38/6652.html Here is your evidence scroll down and see her membership there too. Diane S aarm member and active poster and she made a legal threat here. So you will be blocking Urbie, hyperbole or any new sock puppets from her aarm friends as well as the carm people you blocked till the legal issue of the Diane S is resolved?


 * 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)

Again a Diane S is also an aarm member and a Diane S threatened legal recourse so that is evidence of aarm legal threats in that the person using that name is a member of aarm and carm. By all means block her and friends from both aarm and carm but not just one side.

Please also show where the carm "puppets" were "abusive and the aarm puppes were not?" Shouldn't the puppets be referred to as "Diane S puppets" and they are users from both aarm and carm. Remember to check the membership lists or links to both boards and you will find her name listed Diane S. as an active member of aarm and carm. Yamla also stated "CARM" was recruiting people because of Diane S.? http://aarm.mywowbb.com/forum38/6652.html Scroll down a few posts in this link and she a person is listed Diane S member posting so aarm recruits will also be questioned or blocked because of aarm poster Diane S on their forums and legal threats? Looks to me like you had better ban all the aarm people here quickly as to her legal threats and their puppetry.


 * 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)

Also where in any official carm statements or policies does carm indicate that a Diane S officially speaks for carm on legal matters? How do you know who is this Diane S person and that she represents carm/aarm and is speaking for carm's legal issues? Looks to me like she is speaking about her own private legal recourse. She is one claiming to be libeled on the aarm site. If a person libeled it is the person that files suit not the organization and they file the lawsuit to the individual persons involved. You have banned an entire group of people from carm for "legal threats" by carm that were never stated by carm anywhere and there is no one here that verified this Diane s is in fact anyone representing carm officially? You don't even know who this Diane S person or if two people and could even be John Ratcliff impersonating Diane S. He does that all the time and boasts about it as a favorite pass time. How do you know that it was a Diane S from carm that threatened law suits and not the Diane S from aarm or one or both. Does urbie or hyperbole also speak for aarm officially since this Diane S is assumed to speak for CARM and all its members and board of directors? If hyperbole threatens someone does that mean all of aarm is now responsible in the lawsuit? It is stated specifically in the carm rules on their website that carm volunteers and moderators do not speak for carm and that carm is not responsible for anything written by their volunteers. If carm were to be pursuing legal actions the statements would come from Matt Slick and the Board of Directors of their organization officially and not from some Diane s person that may be from carm editing on this article. Carm is not involved in personal legal actions of a member any more then the persons church, membership in PTA or various other groups would be involved. Looking to the actual statement of what is written here by Diane S is that she is personally seeking legal recourse and no mention anywhere of representing Matt Slick or carm. Ban this person Diane S by all means as I am sure she was aware that would be the result of legal statements. CARM also removes all users associated with someone threatening legal recourse as do most groups. I am sure this Diane S knew of the consequences. But again where did Diane S say she was speaking for carm since that is not found on these discussion pages to any "legal" threats by carm officially.?


 * 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)


 * 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)

For the record from this interested party that does personally know the history and those involved, a Diane that may or may not be a member of many groups or organizations is seeking legal recourse and counsel but as a private citizen and person that has been personally and viciously libeled by various persons on the web. No she is not representing any organization, church, place of employment, or group in the legal situation but herself and family members. It is a personal not an organizational legal recourse from an organization against any organization but from her person to the other persons involved.Interested Party 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * "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)"


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Thank you, Urbie. I sensed there was some dishonesty from that editor. ZincOrbie 16:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, ZincOrbie. Please notice that Interested Party continues to evade my question.Urbie 20:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

(2007) AARM forums forced to shutdown for refusal to remove libel and unmoderated content)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

DianeS' use of the word "we" should be quite obvious, as she also stated the following: "We will proceed with legal recourses, no not a threat, a fact." This was not threat but a statement that "we," meaning noneother that CARM in the context, are doing it. DianeS is a director on the board of CARM. She acts as an officer of CARM in that capacity. She has also breathed litigious threats continually at wikipedia by referring to "libelous" remarks. "Libel" is a legal term with a specific meaning in Tort Law. Officers of even non-profit corporations need to realize their responsibilities. Tent-ripper 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Interested Party, Diane S is clearly referring to CARM when she says "we". See for example, here. This has been confirmed in my emailed conversations with members of CARM, though I'll point out that these were not with board members; nevertheless, this provides additional circumstantial support. Several administrators reviewed the block of Diane S here and found it appropriate. Your claims that Diane Sis not empowered by CARM to speak on their behalf and is not an employee of the CARM Board was refuted with the link to CARM's Board of Directors page and the FAQ page which shows she both helps run CARM and is Vice President of CARM, as well as sitting on their Board. Please refrain from any further trolling. It is tiresome and you will be blocked if you continue. --Yamla 22:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Libel
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: 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)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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)

Continued abuse
I discovered irrefutable evidence that 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.  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 S.  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)

2007 AARM forums required to shutdown by server, where wiki editors urbile/hyperbole active members, due to the unmoderated content and libel complaints as repeatedly documented on this archive and refusal of wiki admin to remove the links to AARM in numerous requests.


 * Looks to me like you did a great clean up in taking control of the talk page and article. :-) Now let me share something with you. Diane S has been an administrator for many years of a very busy discussion forum website and knows all about the work you are doing here and how people go about getting the attention of the mods and admins when they are not always around and knows all about "sock" puppets. I think Diane S accomplished exactly what she set out to do here with soliciting "sock puppets" from carm to edit this article and she never denied asking for that help that you have referred to as "abuse" in edits. You stated yourself that sock puppets were not illegal so to speak when you were given the actual evidence of aarm soliciting "sock puppets" on their forums." What you claim "abusive" is subjective since the "carm sock puppets" simply reverted the inappropriate aarm discussion board links and reverting to a more NPOV replacing the "aarm sock puppets" advertisements here. Both sides were equally "abusive." And both sides do have sock puppets. For two years the aarm editors on this wikipedia article have been in control and for two years the admins of wikipedia ignored any pleas for help from carm supporters including letters to wikipedia ignored. For one brief time with Irmgard as admin the article was trimmed but lasted a week till the aarm sock puppet editors returned. At least now an admin is in control of this article and cleaning up! :-)The squeaky wheels do get the most attention now don't they. Again I do believe that Diane S VP did achieve what she set out to do. Sometimes it is necessary to walk a few to get the bases loaded and this was not a strike out but a home run for DS. :-) The CARM article will never "achieve neutral" status with atheists in control of the edits and placing ads here, as you were already told but it is NOW getting wiki admin attention and that certainly is a HUGE improvement. Oh, that wasn't trolling I was doing, I meant every word I said here and do tend to be very LONG winded. See ya! Interested Party 04:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That Diane S would act in such a deliberately abusive manner and in blatant disregard for the Wikipedia reflects extremely poorly on her integrity and does nothing of merit for CARM as a whole. Her sockpuppets after the block for her legal threat were all by definition abusive.  She was informed and acknowledged that she was banned and decided that Wikipedia's rules and policies did not apply to her.  AARM's actions were not an attempt to violate a block and you are well aware of this.  Diane S actions on behalf of CARM have permanently damaged the Wikipedia and made it much more likely that innocent third parties will be blocked due to her abuse.  --Yamla 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but are you for real! Be prepared for a long wind of Reality Orientation dear friend. Abusive manner and poor integrity? What or who was abused and where did that happen? The only person I see being verbally abused here or on aarm is Diane S. The only reason you are all hot and bothered and spewing out venom in your violating wiki rules to personal attacks is because Diane S came here and proved you were lying about her being an employee of CARM to corrected the false information that you posted here several times and to inform you that no carm volunteer speaks officially for carm. You didn't discover any evidence of sock puppets, she admitted to all of it in discussion to asking friends for help and is still asking friends, will ask her husband, children, church members, neighbors and anyone willing to help here because when dealing with amoral atheists, following all the rules realized the ATHEIST were running the show and they were violating the rules as permitted by admin neglect of this article. The atheist editors reverted every edit of proCARM or proNPOV editors if it did not include their advertisment link to aarm. Look already hyperbole posting his changes to the article to include the advertisement to his atheist websites. This is not just about the carm wikipedia article but so much more. It is about Conservative Christians being silenced everywhere and people like hyperbole and aarm members doing all they can to attack and slander christians then linking their foul websites here. I ask again why are atheists from an antiCARM website, that hate Matt Slick and CARM still here as the principal editors of a Christian ministry article? Diane S and or other proNPOV editors have previously posted the rules here hundreds of times and no one paid attention to any rules on wikipedia. You can only play by the rules when everyone else plays by the rules including the admins that do not. They have rules here for the atheists and different rules for christian editors. So in order to compete here with all the rule violations ignored she asked some people to help. BIG DEAL! They were then blocked for helping to edit here because they knew someone blocked here and that is somehow ABUSIVE to ask others to help on this article? The others were not lying in their edits but agreed to their edits or wouldn't have edited.


 * EVERY EDIT by Diane S (or a sockpuppet or meat puppet) after the block placed on October 24 was by definition abusive. Diane S acknowledged that she was not permitted to edit the Wikipedia until the legal action was resolved, yet continued to do so.  This is the abusive manner and poor integrity demonstrated by her.  I am deeply saddened that, by your statement, Diane S plans on continuing to attack the Wikipedia.  All I can do is to block all suspected CARM sockpuppets on sight.  Your claim that she followed all the rules, if this is actually what you are stating, is absurd.  Alternatively, your statement, "no one paid attention to any rules on wikipedia" may be meant to include Diane, though I do not think this is your intent.  And yes, it is most definitely abusive to request others edit articles on the Wikipedia while you yourself are blocked.  See WP:SOCK, something you admit she has done and intends to continue doing, something several of the accounts making edits here have also admitted to.  --Yamla 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

'''2007, AARM website shut down per server for refusal to moderate any libelous content. The repeated requests by "sock puppets" were for help to remove libelous links, wiki admins refused, the AARM server did not'''


 * I told you and you refused to believe the truth when told to you that she is not an employee of CARM and not speaking officially for CARM. Suddenly all the pages are archived by you when you were proven wrong in your accusations. Now you attack her again because she proved your accusations wrong when she cannot defend herself here? Diane S speaks for Diane S alone, not for anyone else, not for CARM and no one else speaks for her and if you continue to publically slander Diane S, I am sure she will take issue with you as well and I certainly would not blame her. I am sure you will be hearing from Diane S in email about your slanderous false statements here. FYI, a person is told if they have legal counsel that their first efforts if being lied about or libeled is to publically refute that false accusation and that is what she did here and then left. If people libeled you by your real name for two years with insults and slander, then went to a wikipedia article to get their slander and impersonating you linked to even more people, would you try to do something about it?


 * Diane S seems quite capable of speaking here for herself despite the ban placed on her until her legal action was resolved. We have numerous examples of her continuing to speak here.  --Yamla 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All Diane S did was tell people here that are libeling, harrassing insulting, threatening violence towards her in the past and impersonating her and other carm members for two years on their atheist website that she is seeking "legal recourse" AND it is about time  and you claim that is a blatant disregard for Wikipedia rules that carm members then came here to work on the wiki article? The only rule violation here as you call it, that Diane S ever did was ask carm supporters and friends and they were not asked here but elsewhereto edit this article to tell the truth here when she could NO LONGER edit on the article and that is not abuse and to suggest it is abusive is outrageous.


 * This is blatantly false and your trolling will not be tolerated. See WP:LEGAL and WP:SOCK.  --Yamla 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

'''2007, AARM server shut down forums or they were to be moderated, was not blatantly false information given here, the server shut down the website though wiki admin refused and permitted libelous links after numerous requests. Diane S became a part-time employee of CARM in 2007 not at the time of the false accusations by the wiki admin yamla'''


 * If I were you, I would be reminded that wikipedia also has rules about personal attacks and insults and you are personally attacking the character of a person and then not permitting them to defend themselves on this talk page. You have no right to attack the integrity and character of someone because their friends or supporters edited here or because they violated some rule against blocked users call it abusive. That is not a way for an administrator to behave in publically attacking people with personal insults or concerning blocking or sock puppet issues.


 * Quote: "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." I did not write this policy.  Given that Diane S did this while banned from editing brings this far into the realm of abuse.  --Yamla 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are using a persons real name here and accusing them of "abuse" and attacks on their character which are not true, violating a rule maybe, "abuse" that is ridiculous and challenging their integrity because they asked for editor help here? There is really something wrong with you. I do expect now to be blocked as that is your M.O. to remove anyone correcting your false statements and have now stated as much as I could here in talk to be a matter of record for anyone wanting to know what really happened. Anyone reading the history does realize the admins will make up the rules here as you go along changing them several times when you were given the proof you asked for. One set for aarm sock puppets that are still here and another set of rules for any proNPOV person here. BYE Interested Party 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I used the term, "abuse", because Diane S violated Wikipedia policy and continues to violate that policy. In fact, you yourself admitted that she plans on continuing to violate policy.  Given that she was blocked for violating policy and then continued using sockpuppets and meatpuppets to continue violating policy, I think "abuse" is perhaps too soft a term.  --Yamla 01:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There is only a cabal if you want there to be one.. This moral atheist urges you to look at that page and calm down. --Wooty Woot? &#124; contribs 09:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't think that all Christians are like the dishonest and hateful ones CARM has been sending here. I don't know how they think that their constant attempts to glorify themselves instead of Him is Christlike. I'd like to apologize to you Yamla on behalf of Christians that worship God and not Matt Slick.

Diane S and Interested Party and the rest of her family and CARM do not represent any form of mainstream Christianity. I'm a long time member of CARM and have made many friends there and we all know that only those that worship Matt or stay silent when Diane and the others do on the secret Evangelical board away from the public eyes are allowed to stay. That's the same board where they do all of their backroom conspiring as well. I have to stay anonymous or I'll surely be banned for exposing the truth of what happens on that board. I guess my IP will tip them off but the truth is more important than my membership there. I have the email addresses of my friends if I'm banned. I've prayed about this, cried, asked my husband for his opinion and it all tells me the deception and darkness in the background of CARM is not of God no matter how many times they call it good.

The abuse and insults towards yourself from Interested Party are perfect examples of their "Christian love". Once again, the Christian community in no way is represented by CARM or the representatives of CARM they keep sending here. Please keep up the good work. God bless. InHisGrace 12:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(And yet it was the AARM forum shut down by their server requests in 2007)

I would like to add my words to InHisGrace's and say that you have shown remarkable restraint in your dealings with these people. I have had dealings with Matt Slick and Diane S for several years and the level to which they have stooped in these 'edit wars' dismays and disgusts me. I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ and daily remind myself that my actions, words, and demeanor set a standard that others will be continually examining for hypocrisy. Watching people that purport to set themselves above others act in this way is disheartening. Diane, interestedparty, TomS, we all know what you are trying to do. Here's some advice: ignore AARM. Forget about it. Put your energy into expanding your ministry and helping people. If you ignore AARM, AARM will ignore you. kcs_hiker 5:07, 13 Nov 2006
 * While I wholeheartedly agree with both of the above sentiments, let's not turn this into a discussion of CARM. Doing such only encourages a spillover of arguments into WP, and that's a bad thing - we don't want to get caught up in such things. --Wooty Woot? &#124; contribs 23:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Documentation
(Documentation: CARM article finally removed per wikipedia. In 2007 the Atheist AARM forums were required to shut down by their server wowbob for AARM's refusal to moderate and remove libelous content on the AARM forums. The AARM server listened to the fair requests for moderation, the wiki admins to this article, refused to remove the links to atheist propraganda websites. As stated on this talk page, after page, numerous requests to the wiki admins were only to please remove the AARM links as libelous content and not a reliable source for an Encyclopedia article. The requests from, DS, family members, "pro-CARM" users or members refused by wiki admins repeatedly, labeling the simple requests to remove the links to libel as "abusive"sock puppets.  The so called "sockpuppets" were making requests of the wiki admins to enforce wiki rules. The AARM server did cooperate when wiki admins would not. All legal actions by DS or family proved unnecessary due to the assistance and cooperation of AARM servers to enforcing proper moderation of the AARM discussion forums. That had been the only request ever of the wiki admins that they referred to as "abuse.")

Continued abuse
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Edited article
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)

Merge draft
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)
 * 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)

Is it notable that Slick has composed poems?
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)

Criticism regarding Calvinism re-added
I have re-added my statements about Matt's belief in Reformed theology. I have, however, edited them to meet NPOV, as I agree they did not when I first posted them. If anyone has a problem with the current wording, please edit it to your heart's content, or discuss the changes here. Previously my changes were reverted entirely, a misjudgement in my opinion (obviously, considering I was the author :-). --Mister Magotchi 08:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The current text reads:
 * Matt Slick's particular view of Christianity is markedly Reformed or Calvinist. Calvinism in the United States is not the predominant school of thought among evangelical Christians. Slick therefore separates the bulk of his Calvinist-specfic writings from CARM, instead keeping them on another CARM-like website, The Calvinist Corner. This may be seen as an attempt at maintaining an image of mainstream Christianity while espousing some noteworthy doctrinal viewpoints that the majority of Christians do not agree with.
 * First, this paragraph makes it seem like Calvinism is on the fringe of Christianity. Historically speaking, it is quite important to the development of Protestantism in general and to Christianity in America in particular. There have been a number of important (even titanic) figures who were Calvinists (e.g., Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, Karl Barth, Thomas Torrance, Francis Schaeffer, etc.), and presently, there are many well-respected, mainstream evangelical pastors and theologians who are ardent Calvinists (e.g., J. I. Packer, Alister McGrath, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, John F. MacArthur, Albert Mohler, D. James Kennedy, and many others in Category:Calvinists and Category:Reformed theologians). Moreover, while I fully agree that Calvinism is not currently the majority report among Christians (though it is on the rise, cf. this article from Christianity Today), it is not the view of a small or tiny minority either, as Mister Magotchi's out-of-the-mainstream wording implies. The numbers of the Reformed churches and the Reformed seminaries (e.g., Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary California, Reformed Theological Seminary, Covenant Theological Seminary, etc.) prove as much.


 * Second, this paragraph seems like original research and attributing motives, particularly the last sentence. If we reduced it to something we could keep, I don't think it would belong in the criticism section anymore because it would basically say something like (not polished): "Matt Slick is a Calvinist, but because CARM primarily exists to talk about cults not the fine points of soteriology, he maintains a separate website called 'The Calvinist Corner.'" Thus, I propose we redact the paragraph in question to something like this sentence and move it out of the criticism section, or we just delete it entirely under WP:OR and WP:NPOV (which is what I did last time, when the wording was hardly any different). --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion (or idea) how prominent Calvinism is within Christianity, but the paragraph as it stands is unacceptable original research - it ascribes motives for separating CARM and the Calvinist Corner without any citation or even possibility of citation. It's just a theory of the author.  I'm going to take a swing at changing it...  --Hyperbole 18:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I had to remove it. It's just all OR.  Magotchi, if you can find a reliable source - like a ministry somewhere that formally accuses Slick of whitewashing his Calvinist leanings on CARM - we can add that.  But we can't have unsourced theories in the article.  --Hyperbole 18:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Can we at least just say that Matt Slick is Calvinist/Reformed and base it on the source of mslick.com ? I apologize for not being as careful as I should be when it comes to NPOV and OR. I haven't really done a lot of editing in general. I still hold that you guys totally ripping my additions is not NPOV either, but I would be happy with the compromise of at least advertising that he's Calvinist and giving links relating to the subject. A knowedge of CARM and Matt Slick without the knowledge that he's Calvinist is nowhere near a complete knowledge. I know him personally. Some form of the word "sovereignty" comes out of his mouth about once in 50 words (OR and exaggeration, sorry, lol). --Mister Magotchi 01:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 03:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I appreciate it.--Mister Magotchi 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

CARM as a reliable source
Is CARM itself a reliable source for citation in other articles? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Moderator incident
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)
 * 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)

status of the merge draft?
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)
 * 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)

Restoration
I would like to note the following: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) That this article was restored with the edit summary "undo redirection - organization apears to be notable (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Apologetics+%22CARM%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a) - will address sourcing concerns ASAP". A quick survey of these hits turns up very little that is both reliable & non-trivial.
 * 2) That my reason for redirecting "Not WP:NOTE -- only independent source has only one paragraph on topic, which notes that 'CARM is simply one man'" still stands.
 * 3) That as far as I know, there is no policy or guideline ordaining the reset of template-dates for restored articles. I have therefore restored the original dates.
 * 4) That WP:BURDEN places the burden "with the editor who adds or restores material." (my emphasis) The majority of this restored article has been "challenged", and requires inline citation.


 * In reply, I will state that we don't usually judge articles by their current state, but rather their potential. The news archive search I provided shows the topic is notable (perhaps it wasn't when it was redirected 1.5 years ago, I don't know).  If we eliminated every article that was unsourced or poorly sourced we'd loose 75% or more of the 'pedia overnight.
 * To me, it is quite deceptive to say the article has been tagged since "March 2008" when it hasn't even existed since April 2008 - It looks like it has been continually tagged for 1.5 years when in all actuality it was only tagged for a month before redirect. The other category Articles with topics of unclear notability from August 2007 doesn't even exist anymore, so it doesn't make much sense to categorize the article into it (and of course the 1.5 year discrepancy also applies). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, news archive searches never demonstrates notability. Notability requires "significant coverage", and a news archive search do not indicate if the coverage in any of the search hits is significant or not. At best, they give a possible avenue which, if tracked down, may yield such evidence. A quick skim of the hits suggest that this is unlikely here however.
 * 1) (i) The only objective standard we have is when the templates were placed upon the article. And I don't see how it is less "deceptive" to pretend that the templated problems are newly-minted. (ii) I don't see how whether the article was ignored-as-a-redirect or ignored-as-an-article-nobody-had-on-their-watchlist really makes much difference.
 * 2) The same red-linking occurs temporarily with each month-change. I would assume that eventually a bot gets around to creating the new category.


 * Well, I did mean the source found by the search, not the search itself. In any case, I will work on improving the article's sourcing soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
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)
 * You make some good points, thank you. I will expand on the criticism of the organization. Cirt (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)

These points would make useful additions to the article. -- JN 466  15:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cowan's chapter in Gallagher & Ashcraft (Greenwood Publishing Group) comments on the fact that the site provides resources for "cut-and-paste evangelism": In other words, it provides pre-formated apologetic arguments for Christians to use in chatrooms.
 * Elswhere, Cowan gives examples of the types of religious movements described as cults by the site.
 * This source from Springer lists Slick's website as one of those putting forward the view that Catholics are not Christians, citing Slick's essay Are Roman Catholics Christian?, where Slick says, "If a Roman Catholic believes in the official Roman Catholic teaching on salvation, then he is not a Christian since the official RCC position is contrary to scripture."
 * Thank you. I will add from these sources. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. -- JN 466  20:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tag should now be removed, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've dropped DGG a note on his talk page asking him whether he agrees as well. -- JN 466  21:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. -- JN 466  00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds appropriate for inclusion. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the other groups, cited to that source, and removed the tag. -- JN  466  12:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

'Commentary' section
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)
 * Open to suggestions. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of quality and bias
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)


 * 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)