Case Opened on 14:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Saladin1970 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
SlimVirgin ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Ryan_Delaney ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Jayjg ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Saladin is indefinitely blocked for, to quote SlimVirgin in the block log, "copyrightvio, sockpuppetry, block evasion, poor writing, bigotry, violations of V and NOR, appears to have made no useful edits". He has asked to appeal to ArbCom, which I understand is allowed by WP:BAN. I am bringing this case purely as part of clearing out Category:Requests for unblock and make no judgement as to the legitimacy of his appeal.

The three admins listed above were the last three to block him. Discussion relating to the block has already taken place on User talk:Saladin1970. -- Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Requests for comment

Statement by Ryan Delaney

This is an RFAR about whether User:Saladin1970 is in fact community banned, not whether he should be banned. The Wikipedia:Banning policy states:

The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 915 administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them.

Well, he's not so odious that I was unwilling to block him. The banning policy indicates that this means he is not community banned, yet User:SlimVirgin re-applied the indefinite block some time later. It is my understanding that because he is not community banned, nor banned by the Arbitration Committee, nor banned by Jimbo, nor banned by the Board, he is not banned. Administrators acting alone cannot ban users, and community bans cannot take place without unanimous support from the community. -- Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement by SlimVirgin

My role in this was to reinstate Saladin's indefinite block, which Ryan had reduced to one week. [1] I did this because of Saladin's behavior on Wikipedia, and also because his 30 posts to the mailing list [2] as Abu Hamza — in which I believe he named himself after British Islamist Abu Hamza al-Masri, convicted in February 2006 of racial hatred and incitement to murder — suggested to me that his editing style is unlikely to change.

As Saladin1970, he made one edit in March 2006, with the rest of his edits being made between May 13 and 18. There were 27 edits to articles, and 10 to article or user talk other than his own. [3] [4] At Harold Shipman, the British doctor turned serial killer, Saladin joined up with anon IPs to add to the introduction that Shipman was a Jew. Saladin admitted on the mailing list that he had done this after a discussion on a bulletin board about how Shipman's Jewish background had never been published by the media. There are no reliable sources that say Shipman was a Jew, and even if he was, it's not relevant enough that it needs to go in the very first sentence, and was evidently being done to make Jews look bad. The only person I'm aware of who has raised Shipman's alleged Jewish background is Abu Hamza al-Masri who, during his 2004 trial for incitement to murder, claimed in court that the British Foreign Office, money supply, and media are controlled by Jews, offering by way of evidence that Harold Shipman's Jewish background had been suppressed by journalists. [5] This is the mindset that Saladin1970 brings to Wikipedia, and it's the reason I believe his naming himself Abu Hamza on the list is not a cooincidence.

In addition, his admission that he targeted the article after taking part in a bulletin-board discussion about it strongly suggests it was an anti-Semitic/Islamist board. It's unlikely this kind of material would be discussed elsewhere.

The edits in question are:

an anon adds to the intro that Shipman was Jewish-British at 01:17 May 13;
Saladin re-inserts it on 21:48 May 13, his first edit to the article;
an anon adds it at 15:25 May 15;
Saladin reinserts it at 08:03 May 16;
Saladin reinserts it at 19:04 May 16;
Saladin again at 08:12 May 17, this time changing tack slightly and adding instead that Shipman was "the son of a jewish [sic] asylulm [sic] seeker ..." referencing the BBC's Newsnight in his edit summary. However, so far as I know, the BBC made reference to Shipman's alleged Jewish background only to say that Abu Hamza al-Masri was citing its supposed suppression as evidence of Jewish control of the media; [6]
He added it again at 06:48 May 18;
And again at 08:05 May 18. Then he was blocked by Tom harrison, I believe for a 3RR violation elsewhere.

Apart from at Harold Shipman, Saladin's editing involved a 3RR violation using a sockpuppet account, which he later insisted was a work colleague with the same IP address, same browser, and same opinion; a copyvio; and block evasion using at least one anon IP.

If the Arbitration Committee hears appeals from every racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic account that's blocked after 20 edits for trying to insert bigotry into Wikipedia, it's going to be very busy. At some point, the judgment of administrators has to be trusted. If Saladin1970 really wants to return and make decent edits, all he has to do is choose another user name and continue. If his edits are decent, no one will notice that it's him. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I should add that, after Ryan reduced the block to one week, I asked him if he would be prepared to mentor Saladin. When Ryan didn't agree to this, and Saladin continued to defend his position on the mailing list, and also continued to evade his block by posting as an anon, I decided to reinstate the indefinite block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment by PHDrillSergeant

If the Arbitration Committee hears appeals from every racist, anti-Semitic, and Islamophobic account that's blocked after 20 edits for trying to insert bigotry into Wikipedia, it's going to be very busy.

That was EXTREMELY uncalled for. Saladin has his right to make an appeal--and he has a right to do so without such derogatory and denigrating comments from you. Please take your flaming somewhere else. Perhaps you should review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. But then again, you're an administrator. YOU SHOULD KNOW THOSE ALREADY.

At some point, the judgment of administrators has to be trusted.

However, at some point, the administrators need to be able to see the difference between a vandal and an editor. And Administrators need to be able to accept their own mistakes.

If Saladin1970 really wants to return and make decent edits, all he has to do is choose another user name and continue. If his edits are decent, no one will notice that it's him.

Right. OK. And a simple WhoIs will show that it's the same IP and then he'll be banned for violating WP:SOCK. Think realistically, and please don't encourage rule-breaking. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Statement by 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. Also, there was no community consensus on my ban, see below. I was just banned.

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) reply

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.

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/1/0)

Accept. Any user should have a right of appeal from a community ban. Fred Bauder 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Recuse. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Accept. Standard oversight query. James F. (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
... though I feel that I should add that I am... "sceptical" that we will be surprised by the result. James F. (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Accept, per Fred. Charles Matthews 20:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply
Accept. - SimonP 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision Information

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Ban by the community

1) 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 is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.