Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (3rd nomination)

Accusations
I'm really disappointed and offended User:Раціональне анархіст that you chose to accuse me of being a sock and having a WP:COI. I request that you either raise those accusations properly with evidence in the appropriate forum or strike them and apologise. You have acted in WP:BADFAITH by making these accusations during your keep argument. You said on your talkpage 'Regards those voting to keep the article, we did not "simply" vote keep; we voted with our reasons provided' - this is plainly absurd. Of the approx 79 words of your comment, 58 were devoted to casting aspersions upon me, including falsely suggesting I had 'created complex forms' on my first edit. On your talk page you repeated your argument saying I suffer from'impulse-control problem (reinforcing my suspicion that you are a new sock of a previously banned editor)' and again restating you do not accept I'm a new editor. I started this discussion in absolute good faith - it's a real shame others didn't enter the discussion with such an agenda. AusLondonder (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You then subsequently posted this template:

(ironically it states 'assume good faith') and again seek to make inferences against me that I have asked people to vote. Your edit summary stated 'added canvassing tag, as nom has been inquiring at forums likely to generate a more sympathetic response'AusLondonder (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated matter, do you have a problem with Islam? Your edit history shows an unusual level of creation and support for articles critical of Islam. Yet you accuse me of a conflict of interest? AusLondonder (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Exampe *Creation of article Rape jihad (a term not used in many credible sources) in which you have engaged in edit warring. Your conduct on talkpages has been aggressive and unpleasant.
 * Meanwhile, you have been consistently following all of my edits AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If by "consistently" you mean less than an hour spent declining several of your Speedy Deletion and PROD tags formed with inappropriate rationales, yes. As you claim to be a new user who has made mistakes, you should expect such attention from more experienced editors. Pax 21:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Virtually all speedy deletes have been approved AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Voting
This isn't a vote. I know this concept is hard to grasp. Simply saying Keep and repeating the above argument is not a intelligent imputAusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you being so incredibly uncivil? I am really hurt by your bad faith. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)