Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Permission to edit

1)I request permission to be granted the right to edit, whilst the case is being considered. After all the case is about wether I am really banned at all. And it will be more injustice if it turns out I shouldn't have been banned indefinately on my 3rd day, and that I was prohibited from editing for several weeks whilst that decision was being made. Maybe it could be considered a bail application.Saladin1970 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this would be a very good idea, since it would allow the arbitration committee the chance to see Saladin's new edits, and his enthusasm to help Wikipedia, rqather than the nasty edits of the past. How can we determine what kind of editor he is if we can't see how he edits? I second the motion for a probationary unblock. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Questions to parties

[edit] Questions to Saladin1970

Before i answer the question, I would like to ask you : why is this relevant to the wikipedia arbitration? Does a slang** match over religion have any bearing on this arbitration? How many wikipedians would be left if past evidence of criticism of others were taken into consideration . Your an ex lawyer and in most tribulnals character assasination or off topic subjects are deemed inadmissable, why should this be differnt ? Saladin1970 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It is alleged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SlimVirgin that you have a long history of anti-Zionist activism on a number of websites. Fred Bauder 00:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm unconditionally that i am staunchly anti-zionist (that is political zionism and not spiritual zionism), and that is my personal POV. However I also fully appreciate and respect the need for NPOV on wikipedia. Saladin1970 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a problem. The real question, I guess, is whether you can courteously and productively interact with Zionist editors. They too are welcome.
  • Ok, another question, is this you? [1]. Fred Bauder 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

yes that is me, and it was dated the 15/5/2006 at 10.54 . (see below for the relevant admissions) You can see there has been no reversions since my last on the 15th may 21:08, on any of my edits. Also my response to the above is yes i am happy to interact in a courteous and productive way with editors who are pro zionist.

and here are the relevant admissions

  1. (cur) (last) 21:08, 15 May 2006 Saladin1970 (RV (3) it is a well researched and documented historical account of zionism, not a POV . and so it stays put)
  2. (cur) (last) 20:35, 15 May 2006 Humus sapiens (RV#3 Saladin1970: a compromise was made to include it at all, don't push this POV)
  3. (cur) (last) 20:29, 15 May 2006 Saladin1970 (Harts book is a historical account of zionism from the 19th century until today . It is NOT a historical account of anti zionism)
  4. (cur) (last) 19:56, 15 May 2006 Humus sapiens (RV Saladin1970: if it belongs anywhere in WP, its Anti-Zionism)
  5. (cur) (last) 19:43, 15 May 2006 Saladin1970
  6. (cur) (last) 18:37, 15 May 2006 Humus sapiens (→Further reading - Moving Alan Hart's ad to Anti-Zionism)
  7. (cur) (last) 15:35, 15 May 2006 Saladin1970 (→Further reading)
  8. (cur) (last) 15:33, 15 May 2006 Saladin1970 (→Further reading)

yes i created that thread to encourage people on that forum to contribute and participate in the wikipedia project, such as creating a wiki page on 7/7 adding their contributions to british_muslims, reviewing the mpacuk wiki page etc.

Fred, I want to clarify that the evidence I provided was not intended to demonstrate anti-Zionist activism, but that Saladin's posts had, in my view, very clearly overstepped the mark and had become anti-Semitic, and in a particularly hateful way. Posting material designed to show that Jews are child rapists, that they believe having sex with animals is okay, and so on, can't be described as anti-Zionist activism. We've had editors who have posted the same kind of material about Muslims. They pore through the Koran and post quotes out of context showing that Islam upholds certain unacceptable behaviors, or they're at pains to emphasize that one of Mohammad's wives was a young girl. I'm not saying that criticism of either Islam or Judaism/Jews is out of bounds, because of course it's acceptable, but it has to be properly researched, preferably with the use of scholarly sources. What Saladin was posting had nothing to do with legitimate criticism and everything to do with hate speech. I wouldn't have posted the evidence had it been straightforward anti-Zionist activism, because I agree that 999 out of 1,000, an editor's off-wiki views are irrelevant. But there comes a point, especially when that editor is egging on like-minded people to act as his meatpuppets, when the views are so repugnant that they do have a bearing on on-wiki activity, especially when the on-wiki editing is of the same kind as the off-wiki posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal of slimvirgins point. If you look at the context of those posts on a forum (nothing to do with wiki) written in 2005 (over a year and a half ago). You will clearly see it as a slang** match between two adherents of a religion, each one using quotes from their perspective scriptures out of context. You will also see within those threads clear requests (by me) to stop the attacks stating that we are both of the same Ibrahimic faith - hardly anti semetic. So Even if you look at those threads you could not construe them as antisemetic. What is important in my opinon is that they have absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia, or what is posted on Wikipedia. Nothing I have ever posted on Wikipedia has taken any scripture out of context as an attack on a relgion. And nothing I have ever posted on Wikipedia has been anti semetic. This is a case of character assasination, dragging up off wikipedia discussions from over a year and a half ago, to muddy the clear issue of the arbitration Saladin1970 10:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a protracted debate here, but first, the posts I linked to in my evidence were recent (the ones you mention above were from seven months ago, and many others were from this month and last month). Secondly, it worries me that you still claim that "nothing [you] have ever posted on Wikipedia has taken scripture out of context," when you were posting quotes from the Talmud out of context to show that Jews shouldn't be Zionists; that you still claim that "nothing [you] have ever posted on Wikipedia has been anti semetic," when you got into a revert war against several editors trying to add, with no evidence whatsoever, that Harold Shipman was a Jew to the intro (and you still haven't explained why you believe that was relevant); and on the evidence page, you've just objected strongly to my evidence about your restoring the content of a blanked page on May 23 during your block, which you say you didn't. First, the diff shows you restored the content, but more importantly, you miss the point that you were evading Ryan's block. You are not supposed to post when blocked. You are not supposed to add contentious material without a good source. You are not supposed to do original research based on dodgy interpretations of the Talmud. You are not supposed to obsess about whether serial killers are Jews. None of this behavior is acceptable on Wikipedia, and yet still you defend it. If allowed to edit here, I think you would cause continual problems of this kind, because despite all your promises to study and respect policy, I think you just don't get what is required. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And here in lies the problem. You say that i conducted a non discussionary edit war on haroldshipman driven by antisemtism, and then you say that i added a section on the three oaths which was an anti semetic attack as i used scripture out of context . Now from where i am standing this is baloney and trumped up false accusations, to push for a ban.

  • a) I reinserted into the shipman page that He was Jewish - as per conversation in the jewish discussion forum. I was then asked to move it off the first line. I did. I was then asked to provide references. I did. Not once did i break the 3RR rule. Fine the only sources that were available, both a letter to a newspaper and the abuhamza trial are not considered acceptable wikipedia references. But then at that time NO one pointed that out to me , and I didn't know better. You have questioned why harold shipmans background was relevant at all. Which is your POV, many other wikipedians - as per the wikiEN have felt that someones background is relevant. So is this a case of my anti semetic posts?? I would strongly disagree
  • b) you have suggested I quoted the talmud out of context when i added the 3oaths to the zionism page. Yet not one single editor on the zionist page considered it out of context. The talmud is the oral law of Judaism, written down some time later. This reference to the 3 oaths that need fufilling for the return of the diaspora is the MAIN reference in the whole of Judaism touching political zionism. It is quoted by 10's of thousands of Orthodox Jews to explain why political zionism is against the teachings of Judaism, as the 3 oaths have not been fufilled. And it is quoted by millions of other Jews as a defense of political zionism, as they claim the 3 oaths have been fufilled. How on earth you could claim it was out of context, original research or anti semetic, on a page to discuss political zionism is beyond me Saladin1970 11:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And here is the actual section, just so you can see how ridiculous your charges of anti semitism, out of context and original research are

The three talmudic Oaths The major historical Jewish rabbis, including those in Cordoba recognised there were preconditions to moving to israel in accordance with the Talmud. These included the three oaths, that jews would not be unduly persecuted, that all nations would approve the return from exodus, and that no force was to be used.threeoaths Because of these conditions millions of Jews exiled from Europe, Russia since the 9th century have prefered to emmigrate to neighbouring countries such as Turkey, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Iran.History of the Jews in Turkey The population of Jews in Palestine at the turn of the 20th century was just tens of thousands.macrohistory Many Orthodox Jews vehemently oppose the return from exile as they argue the conditions have not been met. In particular the second oath wherebye just 2/3rds of the UN general Assembly voted in favour of a recommendation for a two state solution , and All the neighbouring states opposed the creation. Historically the vast number of jews have opposed political zionism, based on these judaic rulings.

Okay, look, I'm replying here in an effort to be constructive rather than confrontational, so I hope you'll take it in that spirit. You're still not getting it. Yes, of course the Talmud is a vital source of information about Judaism, but we're not allowed to use primary sources in the way you used it. Anyone could open the Torah, Talmud, Koran, New Testament and find every manner of nonsense if it's quoted out of context by someone with no training. We see editors do this often with the Koran in an effort to make Islamophobic points. Wikipedians must use reliable secondary sources for research of this kind, preferably authoritative scholarly ones. That is, you must find an academic who has written a book or paper that includes exactly the interpretation of the quote from the Talmud that you want to use, and then you quote or paraphrase that author, giving a full citation to his book or paper, so that other editors and readers can check that you have used the source correctly. Even then it could be objected to as irrelevant or inappropriate, but at least it would have a fighting chance of survival.
The Shipman thing: you would be among the first to object, and rightly so, if an editor kept inserting into the introduction of an article about a serial rapist that he was a Muslim. There's no problem putting it in the body of the article if there's a good source. There's also no problem inserting it into the introduction if it's in some way relevant to his crime. But if it is not relevant to his crime (and especially if there is no source), there is no reason to put it in the introduction, and especially not in the first sentence as you were trying to do. Imagine: "John Doe was a British Muslim serial rapist," as the first sentence of an article. It would clearly be inappropriate to add "Muslim" so early on in the text, and the only reason anyone would want to do it, absent some clear connection between his crimes and his religion, would be to denigrate Muslims in general. In terms of it providing any insight into his crime, we might as well add that he had red hair, liked broccoli, or always drank beer on Wednesdays.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a discussion group, a newspaper, or a magazine, where writers' opinions are often welcomed. Here, we only publish material that has already been published by reliable sources, and that usually means books from recognized publishing houses, academic papers, mainstream newspapers, and some of the more reliable websites. We publish what they have said in a way that we hope is interesting and informative. That's all we do. There is no place here for any kind of bigotry (whether real or perceived) or conspiracy theories where either Jews or Muslims are responsible for everything bad in the world. It worries me that at no point during this long debate have you explained why you felt Harold Shipman's supposedly being a Jew was so relevant that it had to go in the intro, even though you've been asked many times. Could you please explain it now? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy that you are willing to approach this arbitration from a constructive pov instead of a hostile one. I have felt nothing but hostility from both you and jaygy and this is stressfull. And so on a constructive footing, I will reply. I never created the reference to Harold shipmans' ethnic background , it was already there. Given it was one of my first posts, I did what all newbies do and just make the simplest of edits. It was there in the first line and so i put it back. When asked to move it off the first line, i immediately moved it off the first line.

Now with the 3 oaths thing. It has been well documented in dozens of jewish websites. It IS the main scriptual source for political zionism. Those orthodox jews that oppose zionism, cite this talmudic reference, as have the most eminent historical scholars. So it was never out of context. And in fact those Orthodox jews who support zionism don't deny the authenticity of that reference, they just argue that the three oaths have been broken. I did cite a reference, to the first available site which was the neutra karna site. And there are dozens of websites and books that i could also have referenced that use that scripture in that context, including many rabbis and jewish scholars. It seems in my opinon that the issue goes down to what sources are considered acceptable, and whether I should have provided more sources, but given that i was banned that evening, there was little chance of agreeing on an acceptable reference to all involved. Either way it was never anti semetic or orignal material and such charges against me that it was come across unfair. Saladin1970 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] WP:BITE

1) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, provides for tolerance of newbie mistakes by newcomers to Wikipedia. Only after demonstrated recalcitrance should new users be subject to substantial discipline such as an indefinite ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:
One way of looking at the matter Fred Bauder 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
I can see that it is very obvious that, despite previous mistakes, Saladin is willing to change and help Wikipedia. I say that we should give this newbie one more chance. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ban by the community

2) A user who grossly and repeatedly violates Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines may be banned indefinitely if there is a general community consensus that that there is little hope that they will ever edit productively Wikipedia:Ban#Decision_to_ban. The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:
After review by the arbitration committee, if there are good grounds, the ban may be confirmed. Fred Bauder 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
I would strongly urge that the purpose of the arbitration should be to decide whether in fact i am banned at all, as currently I am banned by the unilateral decision of an administrator, which looking at the wikipedia policies seems very much against the said policies Wikipedia:Banning policy.
I then recommend that following that decision, if the arbitration decides to ban me it is in accordance with the wikipedia policies, in particular the recommended principle i have requested on the discussion page . 'All legitimate participants, no matter how much they may disagree on political, philosophical, or other issues, should always be able to edit pages in the same fashion as they can now. Only behavior that truely and clearly rises to the level of vandalism should be fought with extremely cautious uses of software security measures - jimbo whales' Saladin1970 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] No personal attacks

3) Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 18:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Customary practice as the basis for arbitration decisions

4) Arbitrators may use Established Wikipedia customs and common practices as the basis for their decisions Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Point of view forks

5) In certain instances, involving controversial subjects, a consensus has developed that criticisms of a subject are mainly expressed in a companion article which contains criticisms of the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed, based on customary Wikipedia practice, relevant in this case due to Saladin1970's inappropriate edits to Zionism. Fred Bauder 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Adaption of new users to Wikipedia customs and practices

6) It is difficult for an inexperienced user to know and conform to customary practices which have developed by consensus which deviate from a literal interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed, however a new user is expected to have some sensitivity to the expressed consensus of other users who attempt to correct misunderstandings. Fred Bauder 00:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Tendentious editing

7) A user who engages in sustained aggressive biased editing may be banned from affected articles. In extreme cases from the entire site.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] No personal attacks

8) It is unacceptable to direct personal attacks at other users. This includes links to an external site devoted to personal attacks on Wikipedia users, see Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Examples_of_personal_attacks

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970's Wikipedia career

1) Saladin1970 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) edited briefly on Wikipedia in a highly tendentious manner. He was blocked indefinitely by two Wikipedia administrators, Jayjg (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) and SlimVirgin (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Personal attacks by Saladin1970

2) Saladin1970 engaged in personal attacks on SlimVirgin, repeatedly posting links to an attack site [4], [5], and [6] .

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Tendentious editing by Saladin1970

3) Many of the contributions made by Saladin1970 consisted of aggressive biased edits directed at either Jews or Zionists [7]. These edits are consistent with a well-developed persona on external websites (One example) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Jayjg and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SlimVirgin.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Indefinite ban by the community

1) User:Saladin1970 is banned by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Would require a rewrite of the Wikipedia:Banning policy. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] One year ban

2) User:Saladin1970 is banned by the Arbitration Committee for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
For what? Fred Bauder 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Premature. ArbCom wouldn't have accepted an RFAR on his behavior this early had someone not already tried and failed to community ban him. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
This, offered in the face of an arbitration proceeding, is enough for a very long ban indeed. Thatcher131 15:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6 months probation

3) User:Saladin1970 is placed under Wikipedia:Probation for a period of six months. In addition, if in the opinion of any three administrators he has been disruptive, he may be banned for a period of up to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I'd prefer this to any of the other options. He's demonstrated an ability to be a severe pain in the ass and it would be a waste of time to make him come up to ArbCom for a second banning if his behavior does not improve. --Ryan Delaney talk 12:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Strike this comment. I'm not sticking my neck out for him any more. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970 banned for personal attacks

4) Based on his personal attack, on a trusted administrator Saladin1970 is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970 banned indefinitely for tendentious editing

5) Based on his editing on Wikipedia and his external activities Saladiin1970 is banned indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed, no prospect of responsible editing. Fred Bauder 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970 banned for one year

6) Saladin1970 is banned for one year from Wikipedia due to aggressive biased editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970 placed on probation

7) Saladin1970 is placed on Wikipedia:Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article or area of interest which he disrupts by tendentious editing. Bans may include talk pages. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970 placed on general probation

7) Saladin1970 is placed on general probation. He may be banned by any three administrators for good cause from Wikipedia should he engage in disruptive editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed. Fred Bauder 20:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Saladin1970 placed on personal attack parole

8) Saladin1970 is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If he engages in personal attacks he may be banned by any administrator for a period consistent with the nature of the personal attacks. Links to an external site devoted to personal attacks on Wikipedia editors may result in a ban of a year or more.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Saladin1970 violate any ban imposed under this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Proposed Fred Bauder 20:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Saladin1970_appeal_Workshop_a71d.html"