Mr. Smith: Well you just cost yourself any interest I had in possibly following up on this. Accusing Guettarda, of all people, of being a POV pusher and allowing personal attachments to influence his judgment is nonsense. Your argumentative, accusatory approach speaks volumes. Michael Smith wrote:

Yadda yadda, you've got your fingers in your ears and you're screaming you can't hear, you don't care as long as it's a muslim who's the one doing the lying. On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:

Ah, the famed "trolling" attack... stalwart of our unreasonably "admins are always right at all costs" NSLE. Power-mad much? Parker On 12/12/06, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Oh please. If I "always [assumed] that admins are right" many things would be different. That argument really fails on someone who's gone through a desysopping. On 13/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote: It's much more credible when trolls are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

Tired retort. It has naught to do with agreeing or disagreeing, it has to do with what you post and how you post it. You aren't really here to discuss or remedy anything, are you? On 12/12/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

On 12/13/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote: evidences? -- geni

geni wrote: He used to be a sysop. {{citation needed}} -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

I've asked Jimbo to step in and stop you and David Gerard from trying to flame me. Parker On 12/14/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: Given that it's in the form of a long IRC conversation, I'd have to ask Jimbo's permission to publish that here. I can condense it, but give me a while to put the email together. I'm also going to include response to Itaqallah's email that he passed through Luna earlier. It should be enlightening. Parker

Not to worry, Jimbo, I'm condensing it down now into a "salient points" summary version related to the edit only. Parker On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com> wrote:

Alphax/Geni/everyone else, Here is the evidence, for you to peruse. The first part is a repost from earlier emails, second is my condensation of salient points that Jimbo and I went over on IRC, and the final will be an analysis of Itaqallah's claim (which I consider spurious and deceptive) that the sources in the item he reverted did not support the text given. Phase 1: FayssalF/Svest's misconstruing of a block log. FayssalF/Svest (I really don't like deceptive signatures, as an aside: your username should be in your signature!) made a comment on WP:ANI:"Ummmmmmm! Talking about an admin who got a clean block log? This is yours<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=blo… blocks w/in 1 month). Please behave. -- *Szvest <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FayssalF> * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg> *Wiki me up (r)* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FayssalF> 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)" The block log in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pa… I went through the list, counting up until the time when Svest made his post. Here's what I discovered (you can follow them yourself, from bottom up): #1 - block by Aecis, related to a good-faith page move related to commentary left on WP:ANI about a page needing to be moved. Blocked for ignoring a warning posted to the page, but looks to me like a well-meaning mistake that resulted in a block. Aecis's comment on RunedChozo's page concurs with this. #2 - First 3RR, not uncommon for new users. Block by William for "infinite". #2.5 - William resets this to a proper 24 hours; Shouldn't really even count this as a "new" block since it's William fixing his own mistake. Svest counts this as "Three." #3 - Future Perfect at Sunrise - surprisingly friendly with Itaqallah - blocks RunedChozo for a massive 72 hours. 3RR not even violated. #4 - William blocks for 3RR: 72 hours yet again. RunedChozo contests, claiming he didn't actually break the line, and is yelled at for "gaming the system." If we have 3RR, fine, but now they're just hounding this user, not to mention slapping on out-of-process ridiculously long blocks compared to what policy states. We have policy on 3RR, and it says 24 hours. I find it amazing how quickly two admins decided that a tripling of the normal time was appropriate. Phase 2: Analysis of the edits reported by RunedChozo at WP:ANI. Jimbo and I went through this line by line on IRC, so I'll present it in the same fashion. A bit of further analysis on the history on this page: it appears that RunedChozo isn't the only editor that edit wars on that page. Itaqallah and others have been continually reverting and edit warring with other editors on it, to the point where it's almost two articles side by side: each side seems to call up their preferred version from the history, then "tweak" it, before dropping it in as a "revert." Besides being a rather pale attempt at gaming the 3RR system (see also: Complex Reverts), it causes a bloody mess when trying to untangle the article later. Thus the analysis is long, and many changes I will mention only to tag with "multiple version problem." The edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=9… The edit summary was "rv unsourced OR". Change one: major difference appears the "to which both parties had agreed" line. Other portions of this change appear semantic and a result of the multiple version problem. However, change has no relation to edit summary, and appears to be related to edits introduced by Arrow740 and not RunedChozo. Conclusion: Not related to case. Change two: asked/requested. Semantics only, likely multiple version problem. Conclusion: not related to case. Change three: Block of text removed. This is the same block of text introduced by RunedChozo, the same Itaqallah refers to in his email to us. Conclusion: This is the bone of contention, but we analyzed the whole thing just to be sure, so I'll continue. Change four: One paragraph split into two due to image removal/reinsertion. Beyond image, no text difference. Likely multiple version problem again, Conclusion: not related to case. Change five: preceding/succeeding: semantics only, multiple version problem. Conclusion: not related to case. Change six: readdition of Al-Mubarakpuri quote. Not sure what relevance the quote has to article. Also not a "removal" by Itaqallah, so we deemed it of no relevance to the case. Change seven: Merely referencing a Koranic quote, versus inserting the entire quote into the article. After a side discussion over whether having the whole quote did anything for the article, we deemed this not related to the case. Change eight: "Quotefarm" template. We weren't sure what this is, but deemed it not related to the case. Change nine: removal of first name of Irfah Shahid, change of "It" to "He": semantics, likely related to multiple version problem. Conclusion: not related to the case. As you can see, the only edit Jimbo and I deemed relevant to the case was indeed Change Three. Because the text block includes a definite Source: statement, we deemed that the edit summary was indeed deceptive. The second bone of contention was this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=9… with the edit summary of "try using the talk page: we have already discussed these changes". However, Jimbo and I checked the talk page, and saw no discussion at all related to the only edit up above relevant to the case, which indicates that this edit summary is deceptive as well, though not quite as bad given that Itaqallah and others have been in ongoing edit wars on this article and we have the Multiple Version Problem going on. Which leads us to the next, in which Itaqallah sent Luna an email and asked her to forward it, making the claim now that his edit summary is "valid" because the sources somehow do not support the edit. Phase three: Rebuttal to Itaqallah's claim Now, the first thing to consider is that despite Itaqallah's claim that the "source" (singular) does not support the edit in question, what is given there is actually three sources: biographies of Mohammed by the Muslim scholars Ibn Hisham, Al-Waqidi, and Ibn Sa'ad. Regrettably, Itaqallah is correct in his assertion that the sources are only published in Arabic. Why this is is probably a question better left for another time. Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent to read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question. *Bernard Lewis* (he seems to be a favorite source by many of our stridently anti-Israel editors, too): "the murder of a Muslim by a Meccan for what appears to have been a purely private difference of opinion served as *casus belli* for the final attack and the conquest of Mecca." *John Glubb*: "It is possible that the Prophet himself was ill content at the prospect of having to wait ten years before he could march on Mecca, which now seemed as ready as a ripe plum to fall into his lap. He may consequently have welcomed the opportunity Beni Kinana had supplied, enabling him to break the truce." *Carl Brockelmann*: Muhammad "was simply waiting for a pretext to settle accounts with [Quraysh] once and for all. A brawl between a Bedouin tribe converted to Islam and some partisans of Quraysh, in which some townsmen from Mecca itself are supposed to have taken part, presented a pretext for declaring the peace broken." MA Khan (in an article analyzing the 2003 OIC speech by Dr. Mahathir Mohammed in which he called for a truce which would lead to the later destruction of Israel): "Although a 10-year truce was signed, Muhammad broke the agreement and attacked Mecca within two years as his force became strong enough to overrun the coveted city. From the treaty of Hudaibiyya and the subsequent capture of Mecca and Ka'ba two years later, the evident message of the master tactician Prophet of Islam is such: *'When you are weaker against your enemy, do not jump into a suicidal war. In stead, sign a truce of nonaggression for a while during which you could build up the force and ammunition and when you are strong enough to overrun the enemy, dump the truce and launch the attack'*." Yassir Arafat, in a radio address on May 4, 1994: "I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca." "Umar ibn al-Khattab, the prophet had been right to insist on the agreement, for it helped him defeat the Quraysh and take over their city of Mecca. In a similar spirit, we now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem." Now, the Muslim writers have their own side, and claim it was the Meccans who broke the truce. Our article on Mohammed, however, mentions next to none of this, and certainly not the historical controversy involved in it. The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force. Do I think the edit was one-sided? Absolutely. Did it deserve to be completely stripped out? Probably not. And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a good amount of time going through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in favor of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly when there is a controversy over his actions. And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit, well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case at all. Parker

On 12/15/06, Jimmy Wales &lt;jwales(a)wikia.com&gt; wrote: The point is, there was a bit of an edit war in which both sides were One person got indef banned. The other did not. Actually, one got blocked for five days, but piled on and run through the mud first, while the other edit warrior was being held blameless. One is an admin, the other is not. Actually, as far as I'm aware Itaqallah isn't an admin, but Tariqabjotu (the blocking admin) has strong ties to him, including being an "ex" member of the same Guild. And, as is usual for this kind of situation, there are many many many Which makes the possible conflicts of interest going on even more unsettling. The person who was banned, should have been banned long And I stated, for the record, that it's my view that the edit warring on that page merits some disciplinary action towards most of the other editors on it, and that the lack of this while RunedChozo is being attacked as if he were the Antichrist is a problem. Opinions may vary. And indeed they do. Parker

Hello Jimmy, Parker Peters. I did state that what I had written previously was all I had to say on this matter, but Parker's apparent 'rebuttal' compels me to respond. " but Tariqabjotu (the blocking admin) has strong ties to him, including being an "ex" member of the same Guild." "Strong ties"? I have no ties with Tariqabjotu. I have messaged him in total twice (last I remember). One was a festive greeting several months ago (to which he did not respond), and the other was a request for an update on the status of a mediation case involving the article 'Indian caste system'. Which "guild" are you referring to, by the way? The short-lived "WikiProject Muslim Guild"? I was never a part of that WikiProject. I've never been a part of any WikiProject. Can you please be a bit more explicit in describing how exactly Tariqabjotu has "strong ties" with me? "to the point where it's almost two articles side by side" That is patently false, and a total exaggeration. You're treating the content dispute with a heavy dose of bad faith. An attempt by myself to merge the two versions together in compromise seems to you a disguised revert. I don't believe that merits a response. Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate. Nobody reverted to RunedChozo when they could have, they instead reverted one before him, removing the text he inserted (check the article history). In fact, the role played by RunedChozo here and elsewhere was as an abusive and disruptive editor, disinterested in discussion, unable to spare even his friendly advisors and uninvolved admins from paranoid accusations. "Change three: Block of text removed. This is the same block of text introduced by RunedChozo, the same Itaqallah refers to in his email to us. Conclusion: This is the bone of contention, but we analyzed the whole thing just to be sure, so I'll continue." Block of text? You mean two sentences? The first of which is original research? The second of which is the attribution to sources which do not verify the statement? Oh, right. "Because the text block includes a definite Source: statement, we deemed that the edit summary was indeed deceptive." Deceptive? Probably, but only because a source was slipped in of which I was not immediately aware. Intentionally? No. As for the second summary you highlight. I think almost all of the changes in the revert had indeed been discussed, the most significant being the lead and whether the people of Medina "agreed" to the constitution. What had not been discussed was this OR insertion (and yes I will deal with these quotes you provide in a moment), perhaps I should have started a discussion on talk explaining why such an insertion was totally ridiculous, I regret not doing that now that I realise some did not see it with the clarity that myself and the people I was disputing with on the talk page did (Alecmconroy, Proabivouac; who did not endorse it and avoided reverting to RunedChozo). "Unfortunately for Itaqallah, plenty of scholarly study of the life of Mohammed has been done, by people who are versed in Arabic and competent to read and analyze those sources, so we have a good number of scholarly and Muslim leadership quotes which seem to concur with the edit in question." Fact is: the sources RunedChozo provided do not explicitly substantiate the claim he attributed them. At best, his insertion was an editorialised intepretation of events listed in those biographies (and thus still OR). At worst, it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent sources. I don't know if it's an appropriate use of the mailing list to engage in content disputes, but I'll respond to the other stuff here too. The sources you provide present an opinion of the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, I'm not convinced that this is a substantial scholarly opinion, for reasons I will outline. According to you Lewis describes the murder of a Muslim as the casus belli for attack. Well... uh.. yeah, I think that's what the article states. The murder *is* what some scholars consider as the reason for the attack, because it is the murder which nullified the treaty. Does it imply deliberate searching by Muhammad to look for a reason, or mere convenience? Not entirely apparent from that small quote you provide. Who are these people you're quoting? Is Yasir Arafat a scholarly, reliable source? No. He does not have any qualifications in Islamic studies or Arab history, last I checked. He's not considered an authority. Why, then, does his opinion matter here? I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to his educational history, his qualifications, the fields he has worked in. Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his scholarly pedigree in the field of Islamic studies?? The opinions of such people, it seems, are completely expendable considering that we write an encyclopaedia with reliable, relevant sources. Seeing as though you merely copy/pasted from a biased, unreliable article (http://www.danielpipes.org/article/316 , from a journal which seemingly has little connection with studies of early Islamic history) without doing your own research, why did you fail to present the other extracts also? Were they not as explicit in detailing Muhammad's apparently malicious intentions? So much for your "research". No wonder it's quoting Yasir Arafat, it's a political current affairs journal. The author himself is not known for his neutrality nor the quality of his work. Beit Or on the talk page pointed out in his GA review that the Encyclopaedia of Islam (perhaps the best source for Islam-related wiki articles) describes the events leading up to the Conquest of Medina, stating that it mentions that tribal proxy warring contributed to the breaking of the treaty. This was a notable opinion I had overlooked, and I immediately inserted it into the article. Nowhere does it mention that the treaty was a guise under which an army could be amassed. In fact, the majority of academic scholarship does not endorse this view from what I know. To then defend an extremely subjective edit through equally subjective research doesn't say many positive things about how you are approaching this whole dispute in general. "The comment by Yassir Arafat is most relevant, since it directly indicates that Muslim scholarly opinion sees the Meccan treaty as not a peaceful treaty, but one to buy time to build up military force." It doesn't seem you're acquainted with Muslim scholarship then. "And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a good amount of time going through the references and page history, appears to be very biased in favor of making Mohammed look as good as possible, rather than an NPOV presentation of diplomatic episodes in Mohammed's life and noting fairly when there is a controversy over his actions" That's not the case, but I'm sorry you feel that way. "And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit, well, I'm afraid that appears from my research so far to be not the case at all." It doesn't, and I've discussed this above. Your 'research' is less than convincing, I'm afraid. If you would like to discuss this further, I invite you to come to my talk page or the talk page of [[Muhammad as a diplomat]]: I don't want to engage in verbose content disputes on the mailing list. I hope the issue regarding the edit warring earlier has been clarified, a little good faith would be nice. -- Itaqallah

I'm going to snip all over the place, because half of this isn't even relevant. On 12/15/06, IAJ &lt;zzvash(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: After looking back, you and a group were reverting to "your" version, and others were reverting to another, constantly, on that page. Small "changes" happened here and there, but the fact remains there were two very divergent versions going on. Incidentally, RunedChozo did not consist of the 'other' side of the debate. Arrow740 did. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=9… So did Proabivouac. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&diff=9… You're out of line, mister. <snip> At least some scholars and researchers, not to mention prominent Muslim politicians, seem to disagree with your assessment. At best, his insertion was an editorialised Those who voted for him would seem to disagree. And he wouldn't just come up with statements like that in a vacuum, either: they come from somewhere in his Muslim upbringing. Why, then, does For the same reason Dr. Mahathir Mohammed's opinion would matter here, or the opinion of a Saudi Prince, or the President of Iran, or the Ayatollah... I'm not sure who "MA Khan" is. Enlighten me as to We have this nice encyclopedia. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's an excellent place to start. Who is "John Glubb" A British military officer? Exactly what is his See above. <snip> I am, but you seem insistent that the scholarship of any non-Muslims be discounted, and that anything that contradicts you also be discounted out of hand, so I really can't say anything more to you. "And on the whole, the article [[Mohammed the Diplomat]], after spending a I'm sorry the article is that way, and that you feel the need to edit war over it. "And as for Itaqallah's claim that the source did not support the edit, And now that I've caught you not bothering to check, and claiming two people didn't revert to RunedChozo who clearly did... Have a Nice Day. Your 'research' is less than Your handwaving arguments aren't holding up, see above. Parker

In other words, you're "taking your ball and going home." And will no doubt continue to edit war on Wikipedia, which is sad, since you're doing nothing to help the project on those articles then. Parker

On 12/16/06, Parker Peters &lt;onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Well, I'm off for the holidays, you all have fun, enjoy the season, Merry Christmas to those who'll take it, and all that. I'll revisit this once I return. Parker

On 12/15/06, Parker Peters &lt;onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Name dropping is so tacky. --

On 12/15/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Yes, I saw that after I posted. _______________________________________________ -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

The Cunctator wrote: Sorry. I'll rephrase that: It's much more credible when arguments from throwaway email accounts are defeated by sound reasoning rather than outright censorship. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

For those keeping up on this, the checkuser results have come in (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedCho…). I will also copy the comment I made to [[WP:ANI]]: The results of the checkuser have come in with the conclusion being /possible/. Nevertheless, let me make a case for why the IP address in question that led to the extended block is most likely RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>). First, note the previous request for checkuser that came back confirmed. The IP address from that confirmed checkuser request comes from Houston, Texas (see WHOIS lookup <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=129.7.35.126>). Both IP addresses part of the more recent checkuser (the one the ended as only /possible/) come from Houston as well (see WHOIS lookup one <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.237.14> and two <http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=70.114.236.109>). As stated already, the rhetoric from RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>) and 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14>) are quite similar (note the reference to the talk page being protected, as well as the /tool/ accusations). One editor on the English Wikipedia mailing list noted that 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14>)'s edit times don't match up with those of RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>). Perhaps that is correct, but it does not seem unreasonable, in my opinion, for someone to be editing around 11:30pm and 12:30am, especially if a user is angry and passionately wants to say something. So, it is possible that 70.114.237.14 <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:70.114.237.14&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.114.237.14> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.114.237.14>) and RunedChozo <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RunedChozo&action=edit> (talk <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RunedChozo> • contribs <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RunedChozo>) are just both especially anti-Muslim editors who happen to both live near Houston, edit similar articles, and use similar types of statements. However, I am convinced, without reservation, that the users are one and the same. -- *tariqabjotu <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tariqabjotu>* 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC) -- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-

George Herbert wrote: All in all, I like that post. I don't think we'll all completely agree on everything, but you're attempting to be fair and objective, and I like that. Moving on to the checkuser results -- Essjay reports that it's "possible" RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14 are the same person. "Possible" means just that. It's objectively possible that it's the same person, but also objectively possible that it's not -- meaning that there are other people active in this IP range, most likely. We're probably not going to get a solid result, through checkuser; that evidence seems circumstantial. George Herbert brings up an interesting point -- RunedChozo has a strong tendency to edit at about 10:00-15:00 (my time), but 70.114.237.14 was editing only between 20:00-23:00 (my time). I can only find two exceptions to this, in RunedChozo's edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=pre… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=pre… Both were on 18 November, at about 22:40. This seems to hint away from RunedChozo being 70.114.237.14, but given such a brief sampling, it's difficult to be entirely certain. We know that he *can* stay up until whatever time that is, locally, but also that he does so rarely. 70.114.237.14 has two main "periods" -- once, at 20:16-20:34 on 10 December (about half a day before RunedChozo's block @ 11:45, 11 December), where the primary activity was apparently trolling at Striver. It's possible this was another user, or also possible it was a registered user logging out to attempt to avoid responsibility for attacks. The IP's second block of edits comes at 21:32-22:34, 11 December (about 10 hours after RunedChozo's block), and the first edit again attacks Striver. The IP then proceeds to the AN/I thread RunedChozo started, and makes some more attacks before being blocked, at which point it continues at its talk page. Given the IP started its second block by attacking Striver, I think we can at least assume the 70.114.237.14 was the same user, both days. So, I decided to check if RunedChozo has had any previous interaction with Striver. He has. On 14 November, he made two edits to Striver's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&a… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Striver&diff=prev&a… They appear to have been clashing over these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beit_Hanoun_No… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_shelli… This evidence doesn't seem to clearly pin RunedChozo as 70.114.237.14, but it does establish that he had an antagonistic relationship with Striver, and we do know that 70.114.237.14 attacked Striver's userpage. I can see a few other similarities between RunedChozo and 70.114.237.14. Both consider Striver to be an anti-Israeli POV-pusher and/or anti-semite. Both consider the Muslim Guild to be a group of meatpuppets or some other form of conspiracy. They both refer to Future Perfect as a "tool" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muhammad_as_a_diplomat&d… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunri… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic… Both call Tariqabjotu and Itaqallah "liars" frequently http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=pre… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RunedChozo&diff=pre… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic… And as is no doubt obvious to any interested party by this point, they both seem to have a high interest in the exact same AN/I thread and the same article (Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident). So, what do we think? -Luna

Houston, TX, eh? Wasn't Enviroknot from Houston? On 13/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- &lt;tariqabjotu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

And Itaqallah has asked me to forward this to the list: == hello Luna ==

I like to think that, since I've continued to use this and stood by my words in this email account, it'd be clear by now that this is not a "throwaway" account. But if you insist on trying to put labels on me and [[Attack the messenger]], by all means, keep doing so. It only shows how weak your own argument is. Parker On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) &lt;alphasigmax(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Depends on whether or not "reason" has any meaning to the troll. -- Jim http://iacobomus.blogspot.com/

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:38 -0600, "Michael Smith" &lt;runedchozo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Redux: "it's all about *me*". How am I supposed to know that Michael Smith is a Muslim? And why should I care? I am a Christian; both are Faiths of the Book. I didn't even notice that JoshuaZ was Jewish (how obtuse does that make me?). Now try reading for comprehension: hysterical accusations of "rouge admin abuse" are pretty much bound to be discounted. Next time try posting something much less strident. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 12/12/06, Michael Smith &lt;runedchozo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Without saying anything in regards to the content, characterizing every action against oneself as a conspiracy by Muslim editors is not likely to help one's position, but instead further divide the community. I'm sure you must realize that the [x is an element of {Right-wing, Left-wing, Fascist, Communist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish} in "The $x conspiracy is out to get me"] claim has been attempted countless times and has not once garnered anybody favour. If you really want it proven that Muslim editors are not out to get you, I can personally block you myself -- I am not a Muslim. -- theProject

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Smith stated for the record: Moderators, please put Michael Smith on moderation. - -- Sean Barrett | Is smoke supposed to come out of it like that? sean(a)epoptic.com |

You do realize that that's not going to help the situation at all... sigh. Parker On 12/12/06, Michael Bimmler &lt;mbimmler(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 12/12/06, Michael Smith &lt;runedchozo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: And that's where you lost my attention, I'm afraid. Please try to calm down, or you very probably will lose any chance of getting a fair hearing. If you have a legitimate complaint, I'd love to try and investigate it -- as is, however, you look too much like a troll for me to eagerly invest the time to find out. By looking anything like a troll, you only play into the hands of those who want you blocked. Stay calm, keep collected, and you stand a chance. Everything here is about discussion to reach consensus. Just my thoughts, -Luna

On 12/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG &lt;guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net&gt; wrote: Guy, I think you are out of line with this. I've reviewed the complaint, and the edit summaries this complainant refers to are indeed both completely false. As for "dealing with" a situation where someone complains about behavior that is so blatant it is well beyond the bounds of AGF, by banning the complainant for five days? Especially when the one who's doing the banning just "happens" to be a member of the same "Muslim Guild" as the one being complained about? I see not only a conflict of interest, but some serious problems with all those who've piled on attacking this editor. Your attitude is the same dismissive bullshit that caused me to leave Wikipedia, and had me pretty much ignoring even this mailing list for a couple months until I've come back just to check in with Jimbo, who has steadfastly been Not Bothering to investigate the specific instances he previously promised to investigate. :( Parker