Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Evidence

hi it has been quite some time, and everyone has had a chance to comment. can we send the jury out please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1970 (talk • contribs)


 * The arbitrators are busy with many cases. A month is not an usual length of time for a case to take. Thatcher131 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, cases usually take from several weeks to several months, with one case going almost six months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.4.132 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

If it turns out that there has been a miscarrage of justice and i was unfairly banned indefinately, then what sort of redress do i get? It seems to be very unfair that i can be banned from editing for over a month, when the evidence quite cleary points to my indefinate ban being unfair. Perhaps, we should go against the norm and consider this a case of innocent until proven guilty, and agree to let me post pending the decision, (consider it a bail application)Saladin1970 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You can go to Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop and in section one, motions by the parties, make a motion to be allowed to edit until the case is decided. Include any conditions you would agree to, such as mentorship or civility parole.  It never hurts to ask (nicely). Thatcher131 04:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Attack site
Saladin, please stop linking to that attack site. This case is not about me, and that website contains false and highly defamatory material about a number of editors and admins. I have been careful not to link to posts on other websites where you are described in unflattering terms. The three bulletin boards I have linked to are ones you post to, and in two cases, host. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you suggest I draw attention to the fact that we all have a POV, even you. That sites contains many examples of what people consider are your POV. Shall i just qoute them? instead of linking to the whole thread?Saladin1970 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The link is there. There is no need to make it live. In any event, the ArbCom is already familiar with the contents of that site, and as I said, this case is not about me or anyone else on that forum. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

p.s i consider charges of anti semitism, charges that I included copyright violations, that i am bigoted or that I have written POV material on wikipedia defamatory.I also object to the use of outof context material to support your case. Any arguments i have had on other forums regarding the Judaic religion, have been in direct response to Jewish posters attack on Islam and its tenents. Saladin1970 09:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted links to posts written by you, and in fairness, I have pointed out the two posts that I found that distinguished between Jews and Zionists. If there are others, you are very welcome to post them too. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This appeal is about you Saladin1970, not about SlimVirgin. Don't provide a link to that site again, not even a dead one. Jayjg (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This appeal is about wether i am banned or not, and wether having a pov of view off wikipedia is relevant at all. And if i decide to emphasise the point by citing your or slimvirgins off wikipedia points of view, then it would be just. I don't see anybody question your or slimvirgins charater assasination of me as inadmissable do I. The fact that slimvirgin is using the excuse that i have encouraged other muslims to participate in the wikipedia project, to trawl through the internet, quoting out of context, my posts that show a clear POV, has meant that that off wikipedia pov has just been dragged into the arbitration Saladin1970 22:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is about whether or not you should be unbanned, nothing and no-one else. Don't do it again. Jayjg (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

no this is about whether your unilateral decision and side stepping of wikipedia policy, to ban me indefinately, without community consensus, or the consent of an arbitration panel, or remit from james whales was according to wikipedia policy. It is about whether newbies have any protection whatsoever against administrators who would ban them indefinately after 1 day. It is about the community aspect of wikipedia where all are welcome regardless of their ethnic background, religion or country of origin. It is about creating a wikipedia that isn't just a reflection of a judaic/christian western view point. It is about many things. And also for me and many others it is a test case to see how just the wikipedia policies are Saladin1970 22:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken; this is an Arbitration Committee hearing to see if your banning should be undone, nothing else. I'm not sure why you imagine you understand Wikipedia processes better than, for example, me, who is actually on the Arbitration Committee. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

no this is about whether your unilateral decision and side stepping of wikipedia policy, to ban me indefinately, without community consensus, or the consent of an arbitration panel, or remit from james whales was according to wikipedia policy. It is about whether newbies have any protection whatsoever against administrators who would ban them indefinately after <<<< >>>. It is about the community aspect of wikipedia where all are welcome regardless of their ethnic background, religion or country of origin. It is about creating a wikipedia that isn't just a reflection of a judaic/christian western view point. It is about whether administrators can character assasinate, inflate accusations, bring trumped up charges. It is about nurturing newbies and not killing them dead because an administrator develops a personal dislike. It is about many things. And also for me and many others it is a test case to see how just the wikipedia policies are .It is a chance to evaluate whether Wikipedia can be what it aims to be and not stifled by cabels and rogue administrators. What it is NOT about is one disputed 3rr, one false charge of copyright violations, and one case of me calling you a zionist. Saladin1970 22:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Saladin1970 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

oh and jaygy here is a quote from jimmy whales "Let me be clear. In wikipedia, there should be no elites. 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." [] Saladin1970 00:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll revert the link to that article also. It's defamatory -- and I don't mind saying that I personally find it disgusting -- that you would post it in your arbcom case in an attempt to smear and attack your opponents, and it won't be tolerated. --causa sui talk 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ryan, that site contains a detailed account of POV off wikipedia by slimvirgin. Given that slimvirgin wishes to bring in off wikipedia pov as evidence against me, then it would only be logical for me to point out that everyone has an off wikipedia POV, including Slimvirgin. Also i would consider some of the vile accusations leveled against me by the people you term my 'opponents' as defamatory. Would you also find that disgusting and will you also revert their defemation? Saladin1970 07:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a debate. I will block you if you post it again. --causa sui talk 12:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)