Talk:Rafida/Archive 1

82.194.62.23 edits

Dear IP 82.194.62.23, you may have admirable enthusiasm, but your English language-skills are currently so poor that you should avoid making major edits to any article page. Why not request what changes you wish to see on article TALK pages (such as this one), and then someone with a greater command of English can do the actual article edits. AnonMoos 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps semi protect should be requested as there are a number of anons continually reverting.. ITAQALLAH 14:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already asked on WP:RFP back in late October, but nothing happened... AnonMoos 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the anon over 3RR by now? This is so frustrating. He won't even talk to us. I can't quite figure out why he's so determined to mangle the article. If he'd talk to us, perhaps we could figure out some compromise. Zora 11:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we're semi-protected now. If the anon wants to make changes, he's going to have to register. I hope that if he does so, he'll engage with the rest of the community here. Zora 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonmyous IP talk page edits

Deleted cut-and-paste by Anonymous IP 89.148.41.227 04:02, 20 November 2006 which added his garbled version of the article to this page, under title "Archive the real article that was deleted by Anti Shi'as and Salafis":

Dude, I am not a Muslim at all, and I really don't take sides in doctrinal disputes between Shi`is and Wahhabis -- but what I do care about is good English, and not randomly swapping around names in a pointless manner. If you could maybe actually explain and discuss your concerns (whatever they are -- no one has been able to figure them out yet), then maybe they could be incorporated into the article by those who have a better command of the English language than you do (as I offered back on February 27th, see above). AnonMoos 07:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed version

Anon, IF you take a user name and get a user and a talk page, you can put your precious article on a subsidiary page that links to your user page. You can't put up your preferred version here. We still don't understand why you are acting like this. Your version seems inaccurate. You can't just change "Shi'a" to "Sunni" and expect the article to still be true. Why do you consider the current article to be Salafi? It's made rather clear that the term is a term of abuse and that modern Salafis use it. That's a fact. How is reporting it supporting Salafis? Zora 07:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP now indulging in vandalistic "revenge" reversions (Iraqi dinar vandal)

The anonymous IP is now reverting edits by some of us to get "revenge" -- he reverted my edits to Melvin Franklin, Ali Baba, Flag of Israel, and Kurdish flag, as well as Itiqallah's edits to Barelwi, Sunni fatwas on Shi'as, Muhammad al-Tijani, and Zora's edits to Kola Boof and Bollywood films and plagiarism. Beware... AnonMoos 15:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good name for him would be the "Iraqi dinar Anonymous IP vandal", because he frequently edits the Iraqi dinar article with edit summary "Value of the new dinar - update". You can find a lot of the anonymous IP addresses he has used by looking at the edit history of the "Iraqi dinar" article... AnonMoos 15:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For his latest round of vandalistic revenge reversions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.255.150.150 AnonMoos 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest vandalistic revenge reversions [1] include Flag of Libya and Khanjar against me, and Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge against Zora. AnonMoos 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's using IPs from the range allocated to the DSL service of Batelco, Bahrain Telecommunications Company. The only real way to stop him would be to block that whole IP range. I posted the name and email address of the admin for Batelco on the Administrators' Notice Board WP:ANI (Hussain Ghasra, hussain@batelco.com.bh) and asked someone to please communicate officially with Batelco, but ... I don't think anything has been done. Our ramshackle administrative structure not at work. Could we appraoch Hussain Ghasra personally? Ask him to investigate and block whoever is doing this? Zora 20:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you think is best AnonMoos 01:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed. Let's see what happens. Zora 04:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latest nonsense of anonymous IP vandal

Changing Rafidi (which used to be a redirect to this article) to include his garbled version (and putting it on Talk:Rafidi as well). These may also need to be semiprotected... AnonMoos 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi dinar vandal doing vandalistic revenge reversions again

Against myself and Zora, maybe others: [2] , [3] , [4] -- AnonMoos 13:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reported those. I think all the reverts have been rolled back. I call him the Angry Bahraini myself. He vandalizes a lot more than Iraqi dinar articles! I think he needs an anger management course :) Zora 14:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's getting accounts

Has morphed into User:002octoper and User:0066novem... AnonMoos 14:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Others are User:099decemper and User:876august. Do you see a pattern? I certainly see one -- he has the usual Arabic first-language speaker's difficulty in distinguishing "b" from "p"! AnonMoos 15:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created Talk:Rafidi (again)

Article was protected, then deleted, so when he created it again it was unprotected. He's back using anonymous IPs... AnonMoos 09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet accounts in latest attack

User:This is u4399 and User:All thetimz3838 -- AnonMoos 10:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Day and night332 and User:Change is nice799 -- AnonMoos 10:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Alwayz withu2211 -- AnonMoos 10:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeee's back!

He discovered that the article was de-semi-protected, and has been using accounts User:Samandan , User:Iskheelos, User:Yorbedees, User:Charchel , and User:Sefocleez to re-garble the article or to harass me by following me around and reverting my edits. What's so frustrating is that requests at WP:RFP do not result in semi-protection of this article (it is only semi-protected by admins actually responding to vandalism), and after a few weeks the semi-protection is then taken off by some other admin (who did not personally deal with the vandalism), after which the nonsense starts up all over again yet another time. I really don't understand what's wrong with just leaving the article indefinitely semi-protected... AnonMoos 11:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:ArestoFaniz ... AnonMoos 14:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heeeee's back! (pt 2)

User:Shadow gost is his "respectable" account, which he has waited for four days after registration before using (so as to get around semi-protection), while he uses User:Golden ages 12 and User:Game over 4763 to conduct his usual vandalistic revenge reversions. AnonMoos 14:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest nonsense (and admin unhelpfulness)

He used accounts User:Yazeeed 2007 , User:Snikarz , User:One and one is three , and User:I love israel 2007 to add his gibberish to the article, and accounts User:Pink dayz and User talk:Love not war 123 to stalk around behind me and vandalistically revert my old edits.

The admins seem even less helpful than usual this time -- of course, it's absolutely useless to ask for reinstatement of page semi-protection at WP:RFP unless the page is being subjected to a high-volume attack, and it seems to be useless to ask for his vandal accounts to be banned at WP:AIV unless I can catch him right in the middle of while he's still making edits -- and I told User:Voice of All, the admin who removed the semi-protection from the Rafida article this time around on the endless wheel of repetition) over a day and half ago exactly how events would unfold, and he has not bothered to condescend to deign to reply in any manner whatsoever (as events unfolded exactly as I predicted), much less take any constructive action whatsoever (at least User:Centrx, the admin who removed the semi-protection from the Rafida article last time around on the endless wheel of repetition, and was resolutely unhelpful afterwards, managed to reply to comments I left on my talk page). AnonMoos 19:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I left on User_talk:Voice_of_All yesterday:

What do we have to do to get Rafida on long-term semi-protection status, considering that the article has been persistently attacked by a user who freely resorts to vandalism when we refuse to accept his gibberish edits, for almost a year now? Asking on WP:RFP seems to be worse than useless unless the article is directly in the middle of a high-volume attack (which is not the problem on Rafida). You recently un-semi-protected Rafida, the long-term vandal added his gibberish to the article again, I reverted his gibberish again, and now the user will likely stalk along behind me and revert as many of my two-week-old edits that he can find which have not yet been modified by other users -- as he has already done about four or five times in the past. And of course, I'll have to clean up the resulting mess largely on my own, without much help from administrators, as has also been the pattern in the past. How many of these cycles do we have to go through before Rafida is placed on long-term semi-protection status??? For my unheeded pleas the last time around on this endless hamster-wheel cycle, see User_talk:Centrx#Thanks_for_nothing ... 08:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further nonsense

User:Just and wisdom, User:Sun goddess 787, User:Humanity rule, User:Sun shine 545, User:Mr bini 243, User:No problem 1254, User:Namez 2007. User talk:No problem 1254 has reverted the article three times today and vandalized my user page. AnonMoos 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser

Just found out about this now: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iraqi dinar vandal -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaid ibn Ali

"they asked him to refuse to acknowledge Abu Bakr and Umar but Zayd ibn Ali said no,so they left and rejected him." Quoting from at-Tabari on a Shiite leader regarding Abu Bark and Umar is trivial. Thus a point of scholarly debate. Al-Zaidi

The point you're trying to make is not clear. That stuff was out of place in this article, so I removed it. It's still in the Rafida article. Are you trying to say that al-Tabari was wrong and that Shi'a sources would give a different version?

I have been slowly building up my collection of al-Tabari in the SUNY English translation. We should be citing that instead of anonymous versions in Arabic (whoever put these in didn't know how to do references properly). Unfortunately, I don't have the volume that we need here. If you have access to the full run, it would be nice if you could check that quote. Zora 19:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a biased outlook on Zaid ibn Ali's position on Abu Bakr and Umar. According to the Jafaris and the Zaidis (the first Zaidis were of the Jaruddiyya sub-sect, it manifested after the death of Zaid ibn Ali ibn in the 8th century) Zaid bin Ali never recognised Abu Bakr and Umar. It is only according to the Sunnis (at-Tabari) that Zaid ibn Ali recognised Abu Bakr and Umar. Al-Zaidi

i put that reference in a really, really long time ago. i got the narrative from here [5]. ITAQALLAH 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This source is based on the interpretation of Allamah Tabatabai. His interpretation is contradictory to the reality of Zaidism, as the earliesr group Zaidism was Jarudiyya, which denouces Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. Later Zaidi groups accept either the first two, or all three sunni caliphs then Imam Ali and his descendants who fight against tyranny. Also according to this page it states "According to one tradition Zaid...". Al-Zaidi

Proposed merger with Rafidha

For purposes of centralized discussion, please go to Talk:Rafidha#Proposed merger with Rafida. John Carter 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to go through any kind of process on this -- Rafidha was created by the "Iraqi dinar" vandal (for whose multifarious nefarious activities see directly above) in order to try to get around the fact that every single other individual who has been involved in this article has turned thumbs down on his nonsense. AnonMoos 23:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pulls out hair

Sweet leapin' monkeytrumpets, can't anyone involved in this weeks-long revert war use the talk page? ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 07:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same "Iraqi dinar" vandal who has been heavy-handedly messing with this article since November, 2006, as is documented in detail atTalk:Rafida/Archive 1. He claims that any version of the article not thoroughly rewritten by him is "anti-Shi`ite", but he hasn't been able to explain why this is so in any manner that any other habitual editor of this page has been able to understand, and his limited proficiency in English and putting ideology far above any considerations of historical and factual accuracy have given some truly bizarre and garbled results over the last two years. He's now starting up his unfortunate habit of Wikistalking vandalistic revenge reversions yet again (following around behind me and reverting my edits; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.188.105.200 ). Nothing keeps the "Iraqi dinar" vandal at bay except semiprotecting the article, but for some reason Wiki admins refuse to allow the article to be permanently semiprotected -- and from bitter experience, I'm very well aware that asking for semiprotection at WP:RFP is an exercise in complete and utter futility unless a large-scale anonymous IP vandalism attack is ongoing at the precise moment when you make your request.

In any case, the "Iraqi dinar" vandal is fully aware that his edits to this article will never be adopted unless and until he can explain the reasons for them in the form of a cogent argument expressed in comprehensible English on this talk page, yet he voluntarily chooses to bang his head against the wall anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition?

This article appears to be a definition rather than an encyclopedia article. Should it be converted to an entry in Wikitionary? 98.192.228.154 (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a word of the English language... AnonMoos (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]