Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Saladin1970 appeal/Workshop

On User:PHDrillSergeant & others unremitting defense
Saladin's evidence section is long on text and short on actual evidence. In fact, most of what he has written shows contempt (not only for proof-reading, but) for the process. Highly idiosyncratic style and grammar, strange spaces which scroll the page ten fold and so on &mdash; I just changed that now, but it was there from the 1st edit since the page was open, on June 4 &mdash; was anyone able to read it? Did anyone read it? Anyone? Meanwhile, Jayjg & SlimVirgin have provided a disturbing and well-documented account. So why do we have User:PHDrillSergeant & others claiming this is an average new user? It appears questionable. P.S. I await the appeal of User:General Tojo with an especial trepidation! El_C 11:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was willing to take a look at it; but I suspect that consideration of repeatedly inserting links to a Wikipedia attack site will doom his appeal. Jayjg and SlimVirgin have been patient rather than hasty. I wish he had been more reasonable. I want to see the Islamist and Palestinian perspective represented here. The editing problems we could have lived with. The hostile bantering, no. Fred Bauder 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding, Fred. Not quite as User:General Tojo-specific as I'd hoped for, but I am nonetheless satisfied with that reply. El_C 12:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a Mo. I did not repeatedly insert a link to a wikipedia attack site. I added a link once to the site in question, and WHILST i was continuing to edit on the same occassion some nowiki tags appeared which I removed, look at the log of changes between 8.30 and 8.52. We both editited at the same time, and so it appeared as an error when i tried to save.. Only after i had finished my edit session did slimvirgin ask me not to link to it, And SO I DIDNT. Check the log.

and also the formatting issue, someone complained that it was unreadable in one paragraph so i am attempting to format it so that it is readable. Why is it that on every single occasion i try to help wikipedia, edit so that it more reasonable I get condemned.Saladin1970 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll check the log, but why on earth did you think that was an appropriate link? Fred Bauder 17:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

to emphasise the point that WE ALL have an off wikipedia POV, and that it should have little or NO bearing on the posts we have at wikipedia.

p.s I am also requesting that an additional principle is added to the template. If you don't mind

"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." Jimbo wales Saladin1970 18:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)