I've decided to post one last message to clarify my views on this matter. If I'm asked additional questions about it, I'm gladly willing to clarify beyond this, but I'm done arguing.
I support the indefinite block of Saladin1970. He has made no useful edits, and has committed copyvios, violated NOR, violated the 3RR, and has shown a significantly biased editing pattern. This much is, as far as I can tell, undisputed by anyone except the blocked user himself.
Saladin1970's biased editing patterns, particularly in the case of the Harold Shipman article, are problematic. This disturbed me a great deal. He denounces much of Wikipedia's content as "pro- Zionist", as well as the admin Jayjg as a "pro-Zionist editor". This, along with the Shipman obsession, provided significant evidence of anti-Semitism.
For the purposes of this message, my religious and political views are completely irrelevant; however, to show that I'm not acting out of bias, I'm going to clarify a few things. I'm not Jewish, although I have known my fair share of Jewish people and report that they are excellent people. For that matter, I'm not Christian either, although many of them are excellent people too. I am not a conservative, and I do not support the Bush administration. I think the war on terror and the war in Iraq are scams--although I'm not a big fan of terrorism either. I don't have a settled opinion about Israel yet, but I don't think it was fully moral for the Jews to claim Palestine as their own and take the place over. I understand the argument that "Zionism is racism" and give it some credence.
So why do I find this editor's obsession with Zionism evidence of anti-Semitism? Sensible people don't go around accusing random people (i.e. Jayjg) of being Zionists. Sensible people don't accuse administrators in general of favoring a pro-Zionist bias unless they see a Zionist conspiracy around every corner, which I have to say is a pretty clear indicator of anti-Semitic conspiracy nutjobbery.
in contrast to my earlier opinions, I don't think that being an anti- Semite in and of itself justifies a ban. Anti-Semitism is...well, it's not "fine", but it's tolerable if you keep it to yourself. This editor's mistake was not keeping it to himself. Even if he doesn't cop to it now, his editing pattern is not only biased, it's nakedly biased in favor of a highly offensive viewpoint, in a way that communism or anarcho-capitalism or furry fandom are not highly offensive. The distinction in this case is that while communism and anarcho-capitalism may offend some people's sensibilities, they do so merely out of disagreement. Anti-Semitism, and any other form of racism, offends people by attacking an important aspect of their identities. Whether or not you agree with me that editing towards a heavily offensive and racist bias is worse than editing towards a political or ideological bias, I think we can all agree that editing towards any bias is unhelpful.
A couple more points of clarification. Regarding his use of the name "Abu Hamza", I can't reliably argue that it's a deliberate reference to [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], the British Islamic claric convicted for racial hatred and incitement to murder. It's been argued that "Abu Hamza" isn't an uncommon name among those Muslims who choose to use an Arabic name, and it very well may be. I also have no evidence that this editor in any way supports terrorism or any of the other violence advocated by Islamists, so I apologize for earlier suggesting that he did.
Speaking of that word, I think my usage of it was insufficiently explained. If you look up "Islamism" on Wikipedia, you'll see that "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law." My denouncing of Islamism was only meant to apply to these ideologies, and not to the Islamic religion as a whole. In fact, Wikipedia also reports that "Some Muslims find it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to organizations they consider radical and extreme." I will agree with this--"Islamist" is indeed an unfortunate term to apply to the ideologies of Abu Hamza al-Masri, Osama bin Laden, and their followers. But it is perhaps necessary for the lack of any better term, as "Islamofascist" and such are ridiculous terms invented by right wing nutjobs with little understanding of Islam or fascism.
In either case, I'm fully able to distinguish between the ideology of Hamas and the Islamic religion. The ideology of Hamas is something I object to rather strongly--the Islamic religion, in contrast, is no better or worse than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other sensible religion. For those of us who understand analogies well, let me put it this way: Islamism is to Islam what Christian Identity (the ideology of the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist groups) is to Christianity. Stated more plainly: Islamism is an attempt to twist an otherwise sensible religious faith into a justification for murder and mayhem. Islam is a sensible religious faith practiced by countless sensible individuals, some of whom I have been fortunate to have known. If there are any Muslims reading this exchange, allow me to apologize to them for any misunderstandings I have created.
That is all. Thank you for your attention.