User:Arrow740/AminzRfC

There a many different issues to be discussed. For the time being, I'll include here diffs demonstrating them to help me write the full RfC later. There are many diffs to be involved going back months.

. Here, Aminz objected to the use of certain sourced material on Muhamad article. He had, on the talk, written a lengthy, low-quality rationale for his removals. I responded, he responded again, and I responded against, quite conclusively. Read it here. He stopped responding and instead put up tags. I removed them as he had provided no reason for them, and they defaced the article. Itaqallah restored them and changed some other material he and I had a dispute about. On the talk, I addressed his points and added material that I thought should diffuse the dispute. One minute later, Aminz did a blanket revert in which he calls the satanic verses "enigmatic" without a source and pushes a POV regarding that incident. He removed material sourced to Rodinson, Peters, and Watt about what initiated the persecution of the Muslims, and he removed material sourced to Lewis and Rodinson regarding the Meccan response to the battle of Badr, and reinstated the spurious tags.

. Here, Aminz is unable to respond to my clearly stated concerns with certain changes. Because he wants to revert anyway despite this fact and knows he can game the system and do so, he produces the following justification for his edit: "Arrow, this is completely inappropriate. You can not appear after a while and do such massive changes." Wikipedians who revert with such flimsy justifications game the system and attempt to stymie the efforts of wikipedians who have the core policies and guidelines at in mind.

Here he adds "the classical" before jurisprudence to pretend that this jurisprudence is not still current and accepted by Islamic jurists. I have already asked him not to do this but he does it again without edit summary or comment.

Forked: Here was a joke. You reverted an agreement made between itaqallah and myself on the jihad section here, and ignored the extensive discussion of the India edit here. You obviously were lying when you indicated you had read the talk page: your edit summary said "rm undiscussed controversial opinionated material." It doesn't look good, Aminz. Arrow740 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw your additions to the family section; they could not be more biased. You seem to be back to your POV-pushing. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't write those secondary sources, nor the primary sources they quote. Arrow740 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Arrow, when you add biased material, do you really think they will eventually stay? Aside from these, please remember that we are summarizing the big topic of the family and Islam into a small section. What we choose to write requires a enough justification. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary here was wrong again (if "opinioned" means what I'm guessing it does), how are facts opinionated and/or biased? Arrow740 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another dishonest edit summary: this is not the section itaqallah and I had agreed to. Arrow740 (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Another revert, another bizarre excuse. One sourced sentence about history, regarding a Muslim invader of India, is hardly "undue weight to India." Arrow740 (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxying for banned user, misleading attack on arbitrator. See WP:STALK:.

POV-pushing (this POV isn't even expressed by Watt).