User talk:Saladin1970

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Saladin1970, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 15:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my ban

some 9 days ago i was banned by jaygy indefinately. I have only been on wikipedia for 3 days, and then that was it. Anyhow, here are the reasons i was given for the indefinate ban. I will try and address each point, so that my side is represented. the violations cited were as follows

My point is, although there are some violations, this hardly justifies an indefinate ban on my first ever ban. I also cannot see any justification according to the wikipedia policy of a ban being agreed by community consensus, arbitrage committe, or jimmy wales.


So here are the facts as i see them.

so let me address each of them in turn. Noting that this was my first ban ever,

  • 3RR games. On one single occasion. I added a section in the zionist page on the three talmuds.

see history log below. Now 62.129.121.63 is a shared computer at work. I say my collegue who has been following me on this reverted for me, jaygy says i am lying. Remember this is my first ever case of 3RR. On a side note, the references used were to jewsagainstzionism a well known website by jews opposed to political zionism, then there was a reference to wikipedia, and a home page (i understand now they are not usable references, but i didn't know that at the time).

# (cur) (last) 12:04, 18 May 2006 Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (rv, and you are at least on your sixth)

  1. (cur) (last) 11:57, 18 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (you have to give a good reason to revert, ps you are on your 3rd :-) rv to saladin1970 revision)
  2. (cur) (last) 11:41, 18 May 2006 SlimVirgin m (Reverted edits by 62.129.121.63 (talk) to last version by Humus sapiens)
  3. (cur) (last) 11:35, 18 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (lol, you mean scholary research by orthodox jews - reverting to saladin1970 version)
  4. (cur) (last) 11:17, 18 May 2006 Humus sapiens (RV 62.129.121.63 (jewsagainstzionism propaganda). Saladin1970, see WP:RS)
  5. (cur) (last) 11:14, 18 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (they look fine to me what is wrong with them. rv to previous page)
  6. (cur) (last) 10:41, 18 May 2006 SlimVirgin (rv but the refs don't look very good)
  7. (cur) (last) 10:41, 18 May 2006 Saladin1970 (rv to previous page. the references provide all the information given)
  8. cur) (last) 10:40, 18 May 2006 Humus sapiens (→Zionism and the Arab Muslims and Arab Christians - [citation needed] >>ref)
  9. (cur) (last) 10:35, 18 May 2006 Humus sapiens (→Zionism and the Arab Muslims and Arab Christians - added scholarly refs (a ton more can be provided), rm tags)
  10. (cur) (last) 10:25, 18 May 2006 SlimVirgin (rv the sources don't look up to much, and it would anyway need to be written differently)
  11. (cur) (last) 10:06, 18 May 2006 Saladin1970 (rv to previous page - the three oaths are totally relevant -unless you can come up with a good reason it stays)
  12. (cur) (last) 09:39, 18 May 2006 Humus sapiens (RV to oldid=53810141. See talk)
  13. (cur) (last) 06:41, 18 May 2006 Saladin1970 (added three oaths section,)'


  • Copyright infringement.

Jaygy has suggested the following link is copy right infringement. I say that it is fair use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&oldid=30102511

The link points to a 20 line summary of the book by Alan Hart, referenced to the website. The page it is taken from is around 300 lines long.

Here are the relevant points from the wikipedia policy on fair use

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Acceptable_uses Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, '*****establish context*****', or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use. Text must be used verbatim: any alterations must be clearly marked as an elipsis ([...]) or insertion ([added text]) or change of emphasis (emphasis added). All copyrighted text must be attributed.


and here are the othe criterias from the wikipedia page [1]

  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

  • no useful edits

here is my contribution the chinese muslim page

13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m population of muslims and famous chinese muslims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history

It meets all the criteria for a useful contribution

  • personal attacks
On jaygy talk page i suggested he was following me around, and wrote what do you expect from a zionist

I admit i shouldn't have said it, but it hardly ranks in the hall of fame of personal attacks.

[edit] Zionism: the real enemy of the jews

If it belongs anywhere near a serious encyclopedia, that would be Anti-Zionism. A compromise was made to include this POV publication, don't push it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a detailed historical (using historical documentation) and political account from the 19th century until today. It is NOT a detailed historical account of 'anti zionism' whatever that is. It belongs in the wikipedia page zionism (read the title), zionism the real enemy of jews. Not anti zionism the friend of jews. It is staying put. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1970 (talk • contribs)
Please find another platform for your political activism. See WP:NOT and note WP:3RR. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT political activism. Although one suspects that your insistance of removing it , is politically motivated. As i have said before it is a detailed , historical account of zionism, using well researched and referenced material. It is entirely relevant, and there is nothing that matches it for its detailed account. It is a historical account and is staying put.

p.s the 3revision rules apply to you to.

I am more than happy to go through the official wikipedia mechanism for resolving disputes. For the record which would include a NPOV discussion.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Tom Harrison Talk 12:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I got your email. To request review and unblock, put {{unblock}} at the bottom of this page. I'll also put a note on the 3RR page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I've unblocked you. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked you, but the IP 62.129.121.63 is still blocked. Tom Harrison Talk 13:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

It is unbelievable that i have been banned permanently. Accused of copy right violations (There has not been one single case that you can bring forward). Then i have been accused of attacks in talks (you will not find one single personal attack in talks made by me). Then i have been accused of adding non useful material. (every single post had 100% relevant material). And then the 3RR claim. My computer is shared, simple . I did not make more than 3 reversions, and if you are going to go by the editor , then at the most it would be a 24 hour ban. This is unprecidented, and it is a stain on wikipedia. Can someone please contact me via email to discuss this matter. thank you {{unblock|no evidence whatsoever for the accusations}} {{unblock|jaygy will not be able to give you a single piece of proof for blocking me}}

[edit] Wikipedia policies

Please recognize that the Wikipedia community is designed to work through disagreements. It can sometimes be arduous to see things through a dispute resolution process, but the community is built upon collaboration. Please refer to What Wikipedia is NOT, which is an official policy of Wikipedia. It includes the following:

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. If a user acts uncivilly, uncalmly, uncooperatively, insultingly, harassingly or intimidatingly towards you, this does not give you an excuse to do the same unto them ("he started it!"). Either respond solely to the factual points brought forward and ignore its objectionable flavouring, or ignore the relevant message entirely. When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution.

I sympathize with you on the deletion of a link or reference that is seemingly notable, verifiable, etc., but since Wikipedia is built upon consensus, a convincing case has to be made for any controversial edit. Be sure to Be Bold, but also be sure to Assume Good Faith on the part of others. Since edits made during content disputes are often contentious, there is the temptation to characterize them as "vandalism." The Wikipedia community typically uses the word "vandalism" to refer to lots of mischief, but edit wars, strictly speaking, are usually not considered vandalism. Cheers, Dick Clark 20:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your ban

I've reduced your block term to one week while the administrators decide how to handle your case. During the intervening time I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the relevant Wikipedia policies as other editors have warned you: In particular, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your edits so far have been highly disruptive and of generally poor quality. I shortened your block because I believe you followed the Wikipedia guideline to be bold, and as you did no permanent damage, I think you should be given a second chance. But if your block expires and your editing habits do not improve, I will not stick my neck out for you a second time.

If you have any questions whatever about Wikipedia or why your behavior up to this point has not been acceptable, please feel free to email me or post them on my talk page and I will do my best to explain the situation to you. We welcome new contributors, but disruptive edits that remove content and alter articles to a non-neutral or fringe point-of-view are not accepted. I trust that you will show good faith and a willingness to comport your behavior to community standards. Thanks.

--Ryan Delaney talk 20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored

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. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Since when is "poor writing" a blockable offense? Let's not be over the top here, please. This block is already contentious enough. Dick Clark 02:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not, but given the other blockable offenses it's beneficial to point out a lack of redeeming characteristics. In any case, this has been adequately reviewed on the list already. This account is blocked. — Philwelch t 02:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I fully support this indefblock. JDoorjam Talk 12:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

hi JDoorjam, it would be more beneficial to give a reason why, taking into consideration the information above under 'ban', or for any new reasons you can think of that the current wikipedia advice on procedures for indefinate bans doesn't cover. Thanks Saladin

I've now received probably 200 WikiEN-l emails on this topic, and find myself agreeing with both the sentiments of the users above, and the words of User:JzG: "People who prove themselves unable to collaborate, whether over a long or a short period, are destructive of the project." In my opinion, per reasons listed here and your own postings to WikiEN-l, which seemed to be trolling, you've proven yourself unable to collaborate. This is all I have to say on the matter and won't comment again, so you can have the last word on the matter if you'd like. JDoorjam Talk 15:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblock request

{{unblock|can someone put my case to the arbitration committee as i am banned from editing, and so cannot list a request}}

I will put your request to the Arbitration Committee later today. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to provide a statement for the Arbcom, I will copy it in for you. Please limit it to less than 500 words. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
The request for arbitration has been filed. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participation in arbitration

I have put your talk page on my watchlist and will transcribe any material you place here to the arbitration request. Fred Bauder 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Fred, has there been any progress on this? If the arbitration is going to take a long time, would it be possible to unban me pending arbitration, as there is currently no community consensus for my ban (see ryans notes on the arbitration page)

Would you promise to edit only the arbitration pages and your own user pages? Fred Bauder 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

yes

Done, Don't make me sorry. Fred Bauder 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

any movement on the arbitration Fred?? Saladin1970 01:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Fred, can you add this to the arbitration notes. Also, i would prefer that Jaygy is not part of the arbitration as he has been involved in the case, and so cannot be considered impartial. Thanks saladin1970

As an introduction, I had been using wikipedia for 3 days as saladin1970, making two contributions without an account a few months earlier, to the british muslim page, and the zionism page where i introduced the section on 'further reading'. I made quite a few mistakes during those 3 days including not following the general rule of gaining consensus before additions were added. I have been through the mill over the last week and feel that I have learnt enough to ensure greater positive contributions. And so to my case. Also, there was no community consensus on my ban, see below. I was just banned.

Firstly I would like to draw your attention to the wikipedia policy on 'bans', as per Ryan Delaney comments . I was banned indefinately by Jaygy. There was NO community consensus, there was no arbitration, and there was no remit from James Wales. So in effect it was against wikipedia policies ( Remembering of course that this was the 3rd day of contributions to wikipedia).

Secondly, Ryan Delaney reduced it to 1 week to see if community consensus could be acheived. It wasn't acheived. Then slimvirgin again imposed an indefinate ban, with no arbitration, no community consensus and no remit from James Wales.

So from the outset, all wikipedia policies on the level of blocks for small infringements, and for indefinate bans were sidestepped. I understand that these policies are put in place to ensure there isn't misuse by administrators, and to encourage and foster contributions by new users.. Both Jaygy and SlimVirgin were involved in reverting my contributions, and so were not in my opinon impartial. The subsequent indefinate ban is a very good example of why the procedures are needed, and should be upheld. A lot of effort has been put into developing a fair and just mechanism to deal with such cases. If they are to be sidestepped then surely this should be part of the policy that is debated and considered by the whole adminstration team.

The initial indefinate ban by jaygy cited several reasons. I have listed in detail on my talk page, what I understand are the wikipedia policies surrounding the points raised.I find it quite difficult to see how they could justify an indefinate ban (as is the opion of quite a few administrators on the wiki email listing).

Then there is an additional reason given by slimvirgin , of sockpuppetry. Again I have looked at the wikipedia policy on sock puppetry and again i cannot see any justification for an indefinate ban. I used my work account (and signed it as Saladin1970 - complete transparancy) , and used it to discuss my ban with various administrators (and NO other reason), as there were increasing complaints about the level of emails on the wiki email regarding this case in question).

Lastly there are the straw man arguments ,which go something like this. Saladin1970 is an offensive name, the email he uses i.e abuhamza1970@hotmail.com was made up to be offensive and be associated with abu hamza al misri. He put back in Shipmans religious and ethnic background over 3 times , after a discussion he had offline, and so he must be an islamist who frequents anti semetic sites, and so we don't need that kind of person.

Well my son is hamza, and i have been using the email abuhamza1970@hotmail.com for several years now.

Yes i put back in the reference to Shipmans ethnic background in exactly the same place it initially was(most biographies include this information). I was then suggested it shouldn't be in the introduction, so i moved it. It was then suggested the references were not good enough, and so i provided what few sources are available that list his ethnicity. It was never explained to me by anyone that these references were not recognised by wikipedia. Of course i now know better.

But this general picture of my posts pointing to 'anti semitism' are quite a distortion. I find it quite offensive to be called antisemetic, which is against my faith. I am however antizionist (as are millions of christians, jews, atheists and muslims around the world). This however has not resulted in me pushing a POV. I have looked at wikis guidelines on NPOV, and I am quite confident that none of my contributions have pushed a NPOV, specifically my contributions to the Zionism page.

I have made several contributions to the wiki pages including chinese muslims, turkic people, spanish inquisition ,alan hart and lastly zionism, where I introduced factual information on the the talmudic three oaths, which is one of the major scriptual points surrounding 'zionism'.I also included the book by the ITN presenter Alan Hart in the further reading section. A book that has been researched for over 5 years ,factual documenting the build up to 'political' zionism from the 19th century.

My final point is that, yes i was over enthusiastic, yes i was unaware of a lot of the rules behind wikipedia, however i made 'useful contributions'(chinese muslims, amongst others, and to sidestep the wikipedia policies/guidlines on an indefinte ban to permanently ban me is unjust. I look forward to making lots of contributions to the many subjects that i am interested in

You might want to emphasise the point that 'Abu Hamza' means 'Hamza's father' and is (if I understand correctly) no more intrinsically offensive than the name 'Adolf'. It's unlikely the arbitrators have much knowledge of Arabic. --Sam Blanning(talk) 11:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi sam, yes thanks for that point. Abu means father of, it is extremely common for people to be named father of, son of , daughter of etc. In christian circles it is common to have surnames, in muslim countries it is common to use abu (father of), or bin (son of ), or bint (daughter of), as the lineage is important. That said, i have had this email for yonks, and it was never part of my wikipedia name. It was only brought up by philip welch who noted that my email was abuhamza1970. Also there was talk of saladin by an offensive name. Saladin is one of the few islamic figures who the majority of christians and muslims viewed as chilvarous , just and fair - hardly offensive.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Salman01

Final (1/11/5) Ended 05:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Salman01 (talk · contribs) – Hello everyone, How are you? My name is Salman and I have been editing articles in wikipedia for a while. I have been through all different kinds of things at wikipedia; see my talk page for more details. Others wikipedians and I also believe that I have improved a lot since the first time I started editing at wikipedia. I would like an opportunity to become an administrator at wikipedia because even though I have posted “I am willing to help whoever is looking for help in their work”, I haven’t been offered for help. So I would like to become an administrator so I can help others wikipedians. Thank you SalmanSallu 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
  1. Moral Support Might I suggest withdrawing from this RfA, for if the oppose votes pile up, I'd hate to have you become jaded with the project and leave, as you seem to be a valuable contributor. Perhaps take a look at some recent RfA candidates who have succeeded in becoming admins to get a feel of what the community is looking for in a potential administrator. If you wait a while and get a better handle on what an admin is all about, I'm sure you'll see most of the oppose votes turn into supporting votes at a later date. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 02:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Cuñado - Talk 02:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ian Cairns 00:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC) (I took time to read Salman01's talk page and viewed the issues with his edits. I am also struggling with the relevance of Salman01's answer to Q2 below.)
  3. Oppose. Not sure if this RfA is open for voting yet according to policy, which is one of the reasons for this vote. -lethe talk + 00:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Salman01_RfA -- Avi 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose none of the tasks listed are admin tasks, removing opinions is not the reason to get admin Alphachimp talk 01:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per above. --WinHunter (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose malformed unlisted RfA (see WP:RfA talk). Answer to question one shows that candidate doesn't seem to understand what admin tools are for - you can ensure "Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way" without the tools and quite frankly, if that is your only need for them, then you don't need them. --james // bornhj (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per RfA talk. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 02:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC) — per above
  10. Oppose. Suggest withdrawal. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-05 02:27Z
  11. Oppose per block log. You got blocked on July 1 and you nominated yourself for adminship on July 2? I haven't checked the allegations to see if they're true, but a potential admin should have a clean record. --Elkman 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
  1. --Street Scholar 11:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Avoid pile on. Strongly suggest withdrawal. Roy A.A. 02:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Merovingian {T C @} 03:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Voting neutral only to not pile on to the oppose votes. A withdraw would be a wise choice. --WillMak050389 03:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Neutral to avoid pile on and possible :('edness on behalf of Salman. I strongly suggest withdrawal mate. ShaunES 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC).
Comments
  • Comment This user has less than 1000 edits, and most are to the same articles. Alphachimp talk 01:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
A: I highly contributed to the Islamic pages at wikipedia, since they are very likely read these days by everyone. I wanted to make sure that the Islamic pages contain only Islamic information in a neutral way. I am going to continue editing at wikipedia for as long as possible.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: Well, I am really pleased with all most each and every article that had been written in detail by wikipedians. Whenever I need help with school work I always come to wikipedia for guidance and information about my project. I am very pleased with most of the articles written fully in wikipedia. The only thing I don’t like about wikipedia is that there are so many wikipedians around and there are still some articles that are incomplete so I am willing to contribute to the articles that are incomplete.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A: Yes I have been, not a lot of times though. Recently I have been accused by our friend Grenavitar for violating the copyright rules of wikipedia and he blocked me from editing articles on wikipedia. But now I am back and I am going to try my best to solve the issue in a nice and professional way. I am innocent as far as this accusation is concerned.
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal

This case has been closed and the final decision is published at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 06:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)