Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
====Comments by others about the request concerning Breein1007 ==== |
====Comments by others about the request concerning Breein1007 ==== |
||
I'll be brief on this: Both Breein1007 and Supreme Deliciousness both have a history of pushing different POVs at a number of articles. Breein1007 also has a history of leaving edit summaries that provoke/insult/bait responses from "Pro-Palestine" editors. That said, SD was recently subject to 30-day AE Enforcement sanction[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62#Supreme_Deliciousness] because of his own POV edits at a number of I/P-related articles. |
|||
I would ask that the closing admin keep in mind the tenacious history encompassing the I/P conflict on Wikipedia and look at a solution that helps to reduce some of the "wikidrama" rather than escalate it. --[[User:nsaum75|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">nsaum75</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:nsaum75|<span lang="he" xml:lang="he" dir="rtl">¡שיחת!</span>‎]]</sup> 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
===Result concerning Breein1007 === |
===Result concerning Breein1007 === |
Revision as of 18:13, 6 June 2010
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Request concerning User:Breein1007
- User requesting enforcement
- Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- User:Breein1007
- Sanction or remedy that this user violated
ARBPIA, Discretionary sanctions, warned:[1] (November 2009)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- There has been discussions at the Template talkpage: National Parks of Israel Anyone can clearly see from the entire discussion there that in the end the majority agreed to have either "occupied territories" or mention the occupied territories by name in the template. Then there was a RfM to move an article List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel to: List of national parks and nature reserves in Israel and the occupied territories. You can see the entire discussion here, admin closed it as "no consensus" for the move: [2] After this Breein1007 goes to the template, removed what was agreed at the template discussion and claims "this goes against the consensus of the recent RfC" So with the no-consensus RfM at the article he changed the consensus version of the template to the no-consensus version of the article. I asked the closing admin about this [3] and he said: "I will agree with you that a no consensus decision, does not bestow consensus status across the board for renames to the no consensus name. Each case needs to be considered on the individual merits. As to the contents of the template which is what I think your specific question is. This needs to be discussed on the template talk page and a decision reached there." I went to Breein1007s talkpage and told him this, and then he removes it from his talkpage: [4] And then he goes to the template and once again changes it to the same no-consensus version as the article RfM. Against the consensus at the template talkpage: [5] And then at the talkpage he says: [6] "And as discussed at the other article RfC, National parks "OF" Israel does not imply that they are in Israel." (misrepresenting the talkpage) "so please stop making POV edits with no consensus." He calls other peoples edits that follow the template talkpage consensus for "pov" while claiming it goes "against consensus" which is really a no-consensus from another RfM. And he did this after I pointed out to him what the closing admin had said, and he got no new consensus at the template discussion for the change he made.
- There was a lot of discussions over several articles to change several mountains in the Golan Heights from the Hebrew name to the Arabic name:[7][8][9] The closing admin said there was no consensus so there was no change:[10][11](At this time the translation of the name was Arabic first, Hebrew second) Then there was talks about adding all the Golan mountains into one single article and having the names with a (/) next to each other. Breein1007 then went and changed the translation to put the Hebrew translation before the Arabic before getting any consensus at all for this change: "putting languages in right order" (once again misrepresenting the consensus at talkpage: "right order") [12][13] three times he reverts this and gets warned by admin, look at the edit summary when he removed it [14]
- At Golan Heights, a user had removed a quote and misrepresented the quote in the text, she changed it from the quotes: "more than 80%" to hers: "sometimes" I changed this [15] and explained this at the talkpage: [16] Breein jumps in and reverts, tells an IP "please stop edit warring, sock puppet. use the talk page as asked". But if you look at the discussion, the version that Breein1007 reverted to had no consensus, and Breein1007 himself did not use the talkpage as he had asked the IP to do: [17] He just reverted, inserting a sentence that the source did not support, that had no consensus, and that Breein1007 himself did not discuss about at the talkpage while asking an IP to talk about it.
- [18] Types "per talk" in edit summary, but if you look at the talkpage there is no consensus for his edit. He is deliberately misrepresenting the talkpage in his edit summary. [19] He also said at the talkpage that Nick did not "address the issue" which is exactly what Nick did: [20]
- Canvassing: A user goes to Breein1007s talkpage and asks him for help to participate in an edit war: "Need help to fight wih PoV"... Breein after getting the hints goes to the article and helps him out in the edit war: [21][22][23][24][25] And they were also secretly talking with each other in Hebrew so that no one understands: [26][27][28]
- Makes at least 10 reverts to Gaza flotilla raid in 1 hour: (I have not counted the 1 rvs or 2 rvs so its probably more then 10) [29][30][31][32][33][34][35] (7) [36][37][38](3) When another editor warned him about this he removed the warning and said "ignoring comments from an unwelcome individual" He got blocked for this.
Incivility/Behavior:
- Behavior (talking about an admin): "There is this one piece of shit idiot admin"... "he has the reading comprehension of a 5 year old"... "I was kind of looking forward to making a fool out of him for a bigger audience and stripping him of his admin powers"
- Behavior: "What the hell are you talking about"
- Behavior: "I would suggest that you either speak for yourself, or ask your doctor for an increase in dose of your meds; seems like your multiple personalities are acting up." (Then ads it again [54])
- Connects an ANI thread opened about him by coincidence on a Jewish holiday to: "the brutality and disgusting nature of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur War"
- Makes fun of a user who cant speak english well: [55] (Although some have suggested that Ani Medjool faked his bad english, Breein1007 didn't know this. Its the thought that counts.)
- Sabotages a DYK: [56]
- Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
[59] (November 2009)
- Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)
Permanent topic ban from Arab-Israeli conflict articles. His editing and behavior has been a long term problem within Arab-Israeli conflict articles. He has clearly failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia. He has been sanctioned and warned many times, but it doesn't seem like it helps. He has clearly shown that he cant collaborate with other editors within Arab-Israeli conflict articles and he causes a lot of disruption at them.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
User Breein1007 has since he registered his account in November 2009 been banned 5 times [60] all of these banns are within the Arab-Israeli conflict. He has also been subject to an interaction ban: [61]
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Breein1007
Statement by Breein1007
Comments by others about the request concerning Breein1007
I'll be brief on this: Both Breein1007 and Supreme Deliciousness both have a history of pushing different POVs at a number of articles. Breein1007 also has a history of leaving edit summaries that provoke/insult/bait responses from "Pro-Palestine" editors. That said, SD was recently subject to 30-day AE Enforcement sanction[62] because of his own POV edits at a number of I/P-related articles.
I would ask that the closing admin keep in mind the tenacious history encompassing the I/P conflict on Wikipedia and look at a solution that helps to reduce some of the "wikidrama" rather than escalate it. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 18:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Breein1007
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.