Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by User:Saladin1970

[edit] First assertion

  • I was given a 24 hour ban by Tom Harrison, on possible 3RR violation (my first ever ban).
  • Before the ban was completed i was banned indefinately by jayjg, citing the follow reasons
* 3RR games
* Copyright Violations Wikipedia Copyright
* No useful edits
* attacks on talk pages WP:NPA
  • Ryan Delaney then reduced my indefinate ban to 10 days to see if community consensus could be acheived.
  • I disccussed my ban on the WikiEN-l email. However there were numerous complaints from users fed up with hearing the case.

So i then tried to discuss the issue on various administrators forums , such as james whales without signing in (although every post i added saladin1970 to ensure transparancy).

  • Then SlimVirgin reverted Ryan Delaneys ban and banned me indefinately citing the following reasons

I've restored the indefinite block for 3RR, sockpuppetry, persistent block evasion, copyrightvio, poor writing, poor use of sources, violations of V and NOR, and bigotry

The first assertion made by me was that both my indefinate bans were against wikipedia policy on 'bans', which are enforced with the community consensus, or the arbitration panel, or james whales. On the first indefinate ban (after i had been posting for 3 days), there was NO consensus, no arbitration panel and no remit from James Whales. After 10 days of debating the issue on Wiken-I email listing no consensus was acheived and several adminstrators were quite concerned about the ban, stating it was unfair, against wikipedia policy and that the reasons for banning me were like castles built on thin air. On the final indefinate ban by slimvirgin, again there were no community consensu, no decision by the arbitration panel, and no remit from james whales.

So as a summary on my first assertion, all the wikipedia policies on ban were circumvented to enforce a ban by administrators (slim virgin, and jaygy) who were both involved in reverting my posts on wikipedia Saladin1970 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second assertion

The second assertion is based on the reasons given for my ban. I have listed them on my talk page (under my ban section). There is a response to each of the reasons given for my ban but just as a indication of how unfair the charges are, i will give two examples here, and the arbitration panel can view the remaining on my talk page. Both Jaygy and slimvirgin cited 'no useful posts' as one of the reasons for my indefinate ban on my 3 day of posting however

(cur) (last) 13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m population of muslims and famous chinese muslims) and

(cur) (last) 08:02, 18 May 2006 Saladin1970 (added references)

Another reason give was copyright violations http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&oldid=30102511 yet when i looked at the Wikipedia policy on copyright infringements and fair use, i could only come to the conclusion that it was fair use. It was a case of including a reference to the book written by alan hart, and a 10-15 line summary of the book taken from the 300 line summary on the website, which was cited as a reference.

1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. If unfree material can be transformed into free material, it should be done instead of using a "fair use" defense. For example, the information in a newspaper article can easily be used as a basis of an original article and then cited as a reference. Maps and diagrams can often be redrawn from original sources, though simply "tracing" copyrighted material does not make it free. Neither photographs nor sound clips, however, can usually be "transformed" in this way. However, if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken.

who could possibly give a better description of why the book was written and what it was for other than the author

1. Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious.

n/a

1. The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product. Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work.

this would have no negative impact on sales

1. The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images (especially images that are so high-resolution that they could be used for piracy). Do not use multiple images or media clips if one will serve the purpose adequately.

20 lines out of 300 , i say it meets the above criteria

1. The material must have previously been published.

yes

1. The material must be encyclopedic and otherwise meet general Wikipedia content requirements.

yes

1. The material meets the media-specific policy requirements.

yes

1. The material must be used in at least one article.

yes

1. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

yep , it was the article

  • and so a summary of my second assertion is that yes there were some violations, yes there were some niavity due to only posting on wikipedia for 3 days and not knowing all the rules. However reading wikipedia policies i find there is a general belief that newbies should be encouraged, and that mediocre posts should also be encouraged as someone will always come and complete them or correct them. And so to find myself facing an indefinate ban was quite disheartening.


Saladin1970 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC) .

[edit] Evidence presented by PHDrillSergeant (talk • contribs)

[edit] First assertion

Saladin's contributions show nothing more than a wikipedian-in-training who wants nothing more than to help Wikipedia. The fact that this user has, in fact, made not only a request for arbitration but went so far as to study most of Wikipedia's policies, AND cite the right ones at the proper times, shows a user who deserves not only a second chance, but also has proven that he has done more background research on Wikipedia than most Wikipedians. Surely this person deserves the arbitration he seeks. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Ryan Delaney

User:Saladin1970's initial editing habits were grossly inappropriate and a block was warranted. However, his initial block was an indenfinite block, which is not appropriate before a good-faith (although severely misdirected) user has received warning blocks (or warnings of any kind).

The topic of this RFAR is not whether User:Saladin1970 should be banned, but whether he is in fact banned at all. According to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, users are community banned if they are indefinitely blocked and not a single administrator will unblock them. That is not the case here as I unblocked him. The only other means by which a user can be banned are by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo, or by the Board. Since none of these bodies has banned him, he is not banned.

User:Jayjg's indefinite block of User:Saladin1970 was excessive. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If his behavior does not improve in the future, I will not be willing to stick my neck out for him a second time. But there cannot be a second time if he isn't even given a chance to learn our standards and come up to speed. Wikipedia encourages its newbies to be bold, as all changes are easily reversible. We do not punish them for misunderstanding our rules or accidentally running afoul of our policies. We issue indefinite blocks only when absolutely necessary, not out of frustration or desire for revenge against a user we do not like.

--Ryan Delaney talk 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Jayjg

These are the actions which led to User:Saladin1970's ban:

This pretty much sums up Saladin1970's 3 day Wikipedia editing career. His subsequent mails on the Wikipedia-en list, and his other activities (still recruiting people to edit-war to advance his political cause), indicate to me that he still views Wikipedia as a political battleground, not an encyclopedia, and that he is therefore not well-suited to editing Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by SlimVirgin

Saladin1970 is known on the net for his Islamist and anti-Zionist activism. He is the host of a forum called "Islam in the West," [35] and a Jewish discussion group, [36] and frequently posts on another forum run by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPAC UK), a group that is described as Islamist, [37] about which more below. Much of the material posted by Saladin1970, aka Saladin1970.5 and Saladin70, is arguably anti-Semitic. Some members of the ArbCom may feel that what users do off-wiki has no bearing on their Wikipedia editing. However, Saladin has tried to recruit people to edit Wikipedia and for meatpuppets to revert for him to get round 3RR (diffs below). In such a case, it is the editor himself who has blurred the on- and off-wiki distinction, and the off-wiki evidence therefore becomes material. Although Saladin wasn't blocked for the off-wiki activity (because it wasn't known about at the time of his block), it is relevant to the question of whether he's likely to moderate his views sufficiently to become a useful editor.

Saladin's modus operandi is to quote sections of the Talmud and other texts out of context, with no scholarly knowledge or sources, in order to show, for example, that Jews are child rapists, that they have sex with animals, and that they despise women. He has started threads on bulletin boards entitled: "Rabbinacle [sic] child molestors," [38] "Beastailty [sic] permitted in Judaism," [39] "Jews consider women unclean," [40] "Jewish child molestors," [41] "Jews and the sex slave industry", [42] and "150,000 jews in Hitlers Army." [43]

He used the same methodology on Wikipedia, using the Talmud as evidence that Jews shouldn't be Zionists, [44] taking the material from Jews Against Zionism, [45] an extremist website believed to be run by Neturei Karta.

Saladin1970 has written elsewhere about the "shadowy tenticales [sic]" of Jewish/Zionist groups: "oh believe me it is shadowy. There is a board of deputies front, where they list a few people, but it is the shadowy tenticales they spread throughout the british political system in order to further the cause of political zionism ... You see the evil zionists existance depends on the good will of they goyam ... Now 1.5 billion muslims will make sure that the world is fully aware of their goals and aims and their shadowy movements, and the the consequences of of saving little zion whilst pitting the 2 mayor powers against each other ..." [46]

He has discussed the "extinction" of Judaism and Jews: "The retribution against the zionists will be terrible , and i very much doubt judaism will exist anymore. Unless the jewish community rids itself of idiots like yourself, and recognise the wrong it has done to muslims. Because believe me, without any shadow of a doubt the world is changing, and the 1.7 billion muslims are ascending from their lowest point, and the 10 million jews face extinction if the muslims choose to bring retribution on them." [47]

He has written that the 7 July 2005 London bombings were carried out by a Western "black ops" team, [48] the evidence for which is a "doctored photograph and four missing Muslims," [49] [50] that Britain is "fascist," [51] that the British and American governments are "terrorist militant governments," [52]and he appears to believe that Muslim "apostates" should be killed because "if Allah legislates it, there is benefit." [53]

Saladin admitted on wikiEN-l that he came to Wikipedia after taking part in a discussion on a bulletin board, probably the Jewish discussion group he hosts, about the alleged suppression by British journalists that Harold Shipman, the physician turned serial killer, was a Jew. Saladin posted there on May 12, with no evidence, that Shipman was a Jew. [54] The forum frequently discusses the wrong-doing of Jews or people perceived as Jews; for example, euthanasia-advocate Jack Kevorkian, [55] the "heads" of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions, [56] Israeli soldiers who allegedly raped a young girl, [57] a Jewish boy scout leader who allegedly raped a boy scout. [58]

The only source I can find that Shipman was a Jew is British Islamist cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri (known in the UK as Abu Hamza, the name Saladin1970 used to post to wikiEN-l), who was jailed for seven years in February 2006 for incitement to murder, and who claimed during his trial that Harold Shipman's ethnic background had been suppressed because the British Foreign Office, money supply, and media are controlled by Jews. [59] Saladin turned up at Wikipedia and, along with two anon IPs, tried to insert that Shipman was Jewish into the introduction of the article, without a source, on:

On May 15, Saladin1970 asked on the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPAC UK) bulletin board for meatpuppets to help him get round 3RR on Zionism, [60] and posted on May 19 that he was setting up the "Mpac wikipedia task force ... a private yahoo group, whose purpose will be to coordinate active muslim participation on wikipedia." [61] On May 23, he gave more details about the need for his task force, saying: "The zionists are very very organised there, and any posts that question 'zionism' get banned by using trumped up charges etc." [62] On June 7, he posted to a thread called "Wikipedia woo woo," [63] and again asked MPAC members to join his group. [64] On June 11, he tried to recruit them to vote on an issue at Talk:Islam. [65] On June 14, he discussed how "the moshu" — adding in parenthesis "zionist" — should be reported for vandalism. [66]

MPAC UK is a British Islamist [67] group that Jewish community leaders in the UK "view with great concern." [68] It retains on its website a list of prominent Jewish media people, [69] has published material suggesting that Jews were behind the 7 July 2005 London bombings, [70] and is subject to an April 2004 no-platform order by the British National Union of Students (NUS) for its alleged homophobic and anti-Semitic views ("Final Motions Document," National Union of Students Annual Conference, Blackpool, 29 March – 1 April 2004, cited by Michael Whine in "Islamist Recruitment and Antisemitism on British Campuses" [71]). MPAC UK's leader, Asghar Bukhari, has been discussed in the House of Commons in relation to the alleged harassment of a Member of Parliament because the MP was an officer of Parliamentary Labour Friends of Israel. [72] Bukhari has been cited as referring to Saladin1970 as "my main man." [73]

Michael Whine of the Community Security Trust, writing for the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (the Institute is a recognized authority on defense and security issues; the director-general of MI5 is a member of its council [74]), writes that MPAC UK publishes links from its website to the works of David Irving, and Simon Sheppard of the British National Party; promotes Holocaust denial; denigrates Jews; has called the Talmud "the most powerful and racist book in the world"; and "promotes distortions of the terms 'Jew' and 'Zionist' and consistently substitutes the latter for the former in an effort to prevent itself from being labelled antisemitic while at the same time it uses the language of classic antisemitism." [75] It is exactly this substitution that Saladin1970 appears to engage in, while vehemently denying that he is being anti-Semitic.

In fairness to Saladin, I found two posts from him where he appeared to distinguish between criticism of Zionism and criticism of Jews in general. In one, he wrote: "and it is a shame because all those good jews who oppose zionism will be effected, but then again they should have done more to thwart the evil that is zionism," [76] and in another: "Jews are people of the book, they share a very similar religion to us ... That is in stark contrast to the evil zionists who deny gods commands ..." [77] However, in other posts, his conflation of Jews and Zionists is clear. In a post cited earlier, he contrasts Zionists with "goyam [sic]," [78] and writes elsewhere: "And do you know that the birth rate in israel is declining, only certain settlers are producing enough zionists to sustain the current numbers." [79] He also talks disparagingly about the "Zionist board of directors," [80] or "board of deputies front," [81] when he appears to mean the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the representative body of Jews in the UK.

The net is full of this kind of bigotry, against Muslims as well as Jews. In my view, we need to keep it out of Wikipedia. Based on the above, and on Saladin's on-wiki posts, there's no indication that he'd be willing to edit in accordance with our content policies. His May 23 post that "any posts that question 'zionism' get banned by using trumped up charges etc" [82] suggests that he still doesn't believe there was anything wrong with his editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Saladin has mentioned below his efforts to include a link in Zionism to Alan Hart's Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, and cites its removal as an example of unfair editing against him. Hart was unable to find a publishing house that would handle his book, and had to self-publish it, according to a website that is supportive of him. [83] The book has not been reviewed or reported on, which Hart blames on a Zionist conspiracy. Hart writes: "Out of fear of offending Zionism, the mainstream media including the BBC is ignoring this book ..." The BBC is, in fact, well known for its editorial position on Israel, which is far from being pro-Zionist. This is exactly the kind of uninformed, conspiratorial material that Wikipedia articles should not include. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also clarify why I restored the indefinite block against Saladin after Ryan reduced it to one week on May 19. It was for this edit on May 23, [84] which Saladin made as 62.129.121.62 (talk • contribs) during Ryan's block, and which therefore constituted block evasion, as well as being offensive.
The background to Saladin's edit: User:Aminz had set up a project page for Muslims at User:Aminz/Project Page (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to which Aminz had posted: "If you are not a Muslim editor, please do not leave any messages here." This is obviously not allowed, but Aminz had already blanked the page on May 2, so it was no longer an issue. (The edit before Saladin's is mine: someone had linked elsewhere to an earlier version of Aminz's page, and had complained about the Muslim-only sentence. I didn't realize it was an earlier version, so using the link I deleted the offensive sentence. [85] I then realized that I had edited an old version, and that Aminz had already blanked the page, so I reverted my own edit. [86])
For reasons best known to himself, Saladin restored the contents, [87] including the Muslims-only sentence, adding below it that he didn't know whether that restriction was allowed by policy. Given that he was evading Ryan's block, and was restoring a user subpage that had been blanked by the user whose subspace it was, and that he had restored the Muslims-only restriction that was clearly unacceptable — and yet at the same time was complaining on wikiEN-l that he had been unfairly blocked and would edit from now on within policy — I felt that his complaints and promises were not sincere, and I therefore restored the indefinite block nine minutes after he made the edit. [88] SlimVirgin (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Saladin1970

firstly let us just breifly address the very large portion of slimvirgins sumbission that deals with off wikipedia topics.

The issue is not that someone has a POV, but that they recognise that Wikipedia's success depends on a NPOV policy of editing. I believe this is essential, and am happy to discuss any of my edits with the arbitration team , regarding NPOV.

However as much as I loath to discuss my POV on this arbitration, I feel that I must set the record straight on some vile accusations. I am not antisemetic, I am however opposed to political zionism (as are 10's of thousands of orthodox jews and millions of other non Jews around the world who share my view), and I along with 10's of thousands of Orthodox Jews absolutely believe that anti semitism is fueled by the policies of Israel (beach massacre for example). Also I would like to thank SlimVirgin for drawing to the attention to the arbitration panel my efforts in encouraging and inviting people from my community to contribute to the Wikipedia project.

I have posted on several forums now inviting people to be wikipedians, so that they can create the hundreds of pages that could be created, and contribute to the existing pages, reverting vandalism and fill out stubs, monitor edit wars and check vandalism. I have encouraged them to uphold wikipedia policy on 3RR by reporting anyone who breaks this rule (ref Moshu)

Now back to the wikipedia. I made several posts, non of which were POV. I am happy to discuss any edit I have made with the Arbitration panel. However although i went so far in gaining consensus and making comprimise (shipman, etc), I was still far below the standard Wikipedia expects. My only excuse is that i was a newbie unaware of the community, and the way of doing things in Wikipedia, and I probably took the Wikipedia of being Bold to far.

Let us consider just one of the edits. The attempt to include in the 'Further Reading section' of the zionism page the book by Alan Hart the ex ITN presenter. Alan Hart was the middle east corrospondent during the 80's. He had a personal relationship with Golda meir, with Yassar Arafat and several of the US presidents. He was even part of the peace process. He has spent the last 5-10 years researching the course of political zionism from its inception to the Present, he then put it in a book. For a newbie when i inserted this book as a reference i was told it was POV, yet when i looked at the existing list, i was puzzled how this could be a POV whereas all the others weren't. And so i discussed it on the talk pages, explaining it was a historical and factual account and added it back in. With hindsight and the awareness I now have with wikipedia policy and community I should have spent more time discussing why it should be included, but once again I was a newbie.Saladin1970 08:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

response to slimvirgins accusation that alan hart book is POV and not good enough to source well the book's index and summary is available on the web for review at Alan harts site [89] The fact that it was published by the ITN presenters own publishing house does not disqualify it from being referenced. I have read the book and it does nothing but contain factual documented evidence, after factual documented evidence. ps i added this bit here as it seemed more relevant Saladin1970 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

response to accusations by jaygy that (still recruiting people to edit-war to advance his political cause) any reference to me asking someone else to add back the reference to alan harts book was dated the 15th of the May. Yet you say - (still recruiting people to edit-war to advance his political cause). And this is typical of the 'trumped up' charges you as an administrator have used against me, and it is why I believe Administrators should not sidestep all wikipedia policies and ban people because of a personal vendetta. If this is not a case of personal vendetta, of attempt at character assination to justify the ban, then i am a monkeys uncle.

response to slimvirgins reason for giving me an indefinate ban again I had posted my case on Jimmy whales talk page. On the same page someone had complained about a user having a line asking muslims only to contribute. I tried to email the relevant user to tell him , it was probably not part of wikipedia policy. The email didn't work , so i left a message on his user/talk page. I did not revert it to its previous version. or do anything else other that add a comment advising the user that it was probably against user policies. Where on earth slimvirgin gets the idea i put back his user page is beyond me. This is another case of me contributing positively to wikipedia by informing a user on his user/talk page that his user page is probably against wikipedia policy. Yet once again slimvirgin is trying to turn any positive wikipedia edits/posts i make as negative , how low do you have to go to character assasinate?


===Second assertion===

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Saladin1970_appeal_Evidence_8c1d.html"