Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Initiated by Ohconfucius ^¡digame! at 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Date delinking

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 16) Ohconfucius topic banned
2. Remedy 18) (as amended) Ohconfucius accounts

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested

  16): "Ohconfucius is topic banned indefinitely from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions."

  18) "Ohconfucius is limited to using only the account 'Ohconfucius' to edit. He may also use a separate bot account for any bot task or tasks approved by the bot approvals group."

• Details of desired modification: Termination of both the above clauses.

Statement by your Ohconfucius

This week marks the second anniversary of the conclusion of the case, and six months since the remedies imposed on me were last amended. In the six months since the amendment, there have not been any issues arising from date linking, nor any drama involving same, with or without me. Although one might say that the remedies no longer have practical effect, I am seeking to having all remaining restrictions lifted. Call it housekeeping if you will. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements. –xeno^talk 15:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Ravpapa (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) at 18:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=430904012&oldid=430898742#Gilabrand

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Amendment 1

• Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrand
• Indefinite block related to topic ban
• I propose to grant an amnesty to Gilabrand, removing the indefinite block against her.

Statement by Ravpapa

This and the previous request for amendment regarding Nishidani replace the request that I submitted proposing a more general amnesty for blocked and banned editors in the IP topic area. A number of administrators commented in that discussion that they opposed a general amnesty, and would prefer a case by case discussion of amendments. Therefore I am submitting this and the preceding requests.

In a discussion of the state of the IP project here, it was the feeling of participants in the discussion that the blocking and banning of editors had done little to reduce the level of conflict on the project, while other measures (centralized discussion and 1RR restriction) had been effective. On the other hand, several of the participants felt that blocks had removed knowledgeable editors from the project on both sides, and had thus actually hurt, rather than helped, the project.

Gilabrand is such an editor. She has extensive knowledge of the topics on which she writes, and she is a clear and incisive writer. Moreover, she has contributed not only to IP topic articles, but also to articles on a variety of subjects. She has shown herself to be an editor genuinely interested in advancing the Wikipedia project.

This request for amnesty is in no way meant to condone the unconscionable use of an anonymous IP to continue editing when under topic ban. I am aware of the extensive damage that puppetry has wreaked on the Wikipedia as a whole, and in the IP area specifically. Almost universally, these puppets are single-issue editors, whose sole purpose is to introduce propaganda into the Wikipedia. But this certainly is not the case with Gilabrand. Her interest in contributing to Wikipedia as a whole is genuine, and if her passion led her astray in the past, I am confident that this ban has put enough of a scare in her that she won't do it again.

I urge editors from both sides of the IP divide to support this request. By supporting amnesty for Gilabrand and Nishidani, I believe we are showing a level of solidarity and of genuine interest in the well-being of the project that can move the project forward.

Several days later: I am a bit surprised and, I might say, disappointed by the total lack of interest that this request has generated. I suppose that this is because, as opposed to the other editor whose ban I proposed to remove (Nishidani above), this editor is completely noncontroversial. In any case, you can find some discussion of this request here. --Ravpapa (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bus stop

I support the amnesty suggested for User: Gilabrand based on her contributions to the project over a long period of time. She has done some work in some contentious areas of the project and that can lead to stress-related moves that can account for some of the trouble she has run into. I recommend another chance at getting things right. Bus stop (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jd2718

I appreciate Ravpapa's sentiment. Perhaps editors' reticence to comment is due, in part, to how recently Gila was found to be block-evading. That's three weeks between the AE thread and the first amendment request. It may seem too fresh. Jd2718 (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber's approach is interesting (evaluate the edits made while banned). But do we know if all of Gila's ban evasion was done from that one IP? And as that IP is shared, do we know which of the edit's are hers? It wouldn't do to blame her for someone else's work, nor to look at only a fraction of her edits. Jd2718 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davshul

Although I had found Gilabrand's edits to be at times somewhat impetuous and a little inclined to take unilateral action on matters that should preferably have been the subject of prior discussion, there is no denying the enormous contribution she has made over the years to the IP and other projects, her deep knowledge of the subject and the hard work and effort expended by her in improving the quality and range of Wikipedia articles. I consider that an indefinite ban to have been harsh, taking into account her contribution, and support the amnesty proposed by Ravpapa. Davshul (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IZAK

Hopefully by now Gilabrand has learned her lesson and will be careful to abide by all WP policies and guidelines. She will then be able to contribute her great knowledge and skills to enhance WP. Even great people like Nelson Mandela and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ran afoul of their authorities but they then had the most productive years of their lives ahead of them after they were punished, jailed and banished as they came out mellowed and wiser for their experiences. WP should not "cut off its own nose to spite its face." Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

The filing party must notify the blocking administrator that this request has been submitted. Before we proceed, he ought to do that. With regards to the request, I oppose it. Gilabrand was topic-banned some months ago, and it was later discovered quite by accident (Gila signed a comment using an IP address) that he (or she?) was evading the ban by editing anonymously. No SPI was ever ran, so we don't know if Gilabrand also used registered accounts to evade the ban, but it was sock-puppetry and ban evasion that led to the block, not simple misconduct.

I haven't refamiliarised myself with the case, but I do recall that considerable disruption preceded the topic ban and the one-year block. It is my view that that is a moot issue, because in no case should an appeal be granted so soon, if at all, after such serious ban evasion. AGK [•] 10:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marokwitz

I strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. 07:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion by BorisG

Gilabrand needs to be given an opportunity to make a statement. She may be thinking doing so may violate her topic ban. Can we invite her to make a statement? - BorisG (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: It would be acceptable (indeed, encouraged) for Gilabrand to post a statement on her talk page, which any interested party (or clerk) could transfer to this page. NW (Talk) 19:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

More or less as per my comments about Nishidani above, I would think that it might make sense to allow interested and competent editors to edit this topic. Should misconduct continue, the existing discretionary sanctions can be used to enforce adherance to conduct guidelines. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to NW above, I have contacted Gilabrand via e-mail and indicated that some comments there would be more than welcome. I have received a reply, in which s/he indicates that there isn't much more to say than has already been said. I have since sent a response. It is my sincere hope that some comment there can be seen shortly. John Carter (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Timotheus Canens

I find myself very surprised that I have not been notified of this request, and that I only discovered by chance. In any event, I agree with AGK's last sentence. In light of Gilabrand's seven blocks for violating an AE restriction in a single year, at least two of which she evaded through IP socking, I believe that restrictions are not useful in her case. T. Canens (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@John Vandenberg: Gilabrand has a tendency of ignoring any editing restrictions placed upon her. Last time she was topic banned for 3 months, she got blocked 5 times for topic ban violations; when another editing restriction was placed upon her as a result of an AE thread, she was blocked an additional 2 times for willful violations of the restriction. I just don't see how that's going to work out. T. Canens (talk) 08:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Soosim

I, too, strongly support the amnesty suggested for user Gilabrand based on his/her unparalleled contributions to Wikipedia over a long period of time, on a wide spectrum of topics. The violation this user was blocked for (a year ago?) seems to be motivated by the desire to improve the project, not disrupt it. Indefinite blocking is way too harsh for such a capable editor. Let's give him/her another chance. (yes, i copied from markowitz, but it says what i want to say too!) Soosim (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gilabrand

copied from User talk:Gilabrand

Despite years of jibes from the academic community, Wikipedia has become a leading source of information. If that information is to be reliable, comprehensive and comprehensible, Wikipedia needs people who are willing to give of their time to bring in solidly sourced information, write in clear, concise English, remove non-encyclopedic and off-topic material, and add images that illustrate the content and make the reading experience more interesting and enjoyable. These have been my goals since joining Wikipedia half a decade ago. I have edited thousands of articles and taken dozens of photographs in this spirit, and I would be grateful for an opportunity to continue.

My sincere thanks to the courageous editors who have taken the trouble to speak up on my behalf. If I am unblocked, I will do my best not to disappoint them.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(in response to question from Xeno)

My IP address is a shared one. I replied to a question on my talk page but forgot to log in. When I noticed the IP number, I replaced it with my signature. This led to an accusation that back in 2010 I evaded a topic ban. I replied that I opened an account five and a half years ago as advised by Wikipedia so as not to be associated with this shared global IP used by a business center with many offices. I was called a liar by administrators and given an indefinite block, although several editors pointed out that this was indeed a global IP address used by others. Anyone who takes the trouble to look will see ample evidence of my productive work on Wikipedia over the course of many years. I have devoted myself to adding content and images. I have turned thousands of stubs and start-class articles into worthy encyclopedia entries. I have written numerous articles from scratch and spent hours assessing articles for various projects on Wikipedia. I have received thanks from editors across the IP divide for my input. So I am not ashamed of my edits, and I have no reason to edit anonymously. If I am unblocked, I will do my utmost to stay clear of controversy, improve relations with anyone I may have clashed with, and work together to make Wikipedia better.--Geewhiz (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shuki

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs, Ravpapa brought two 'opposing' editors here for amnesty, for balance. You were wiling to give Nish full support so the community could decide, but in contrast, you fail to give Gila AGF and even doubt her 'generic' (?) 'promise'. Nice. Could you instead comment on how the substantially lopsided quality contributions by Gila (in contrast to Nish) does not have any weight to your opinion of her? --Shuki (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

I was contacted by Gila by e-mail, who asked me to comment here. I first came across Gila when she started copy-editing articles and doing a good job of cleaning them up and expanding them (I actually have her a barnstar at one point). Although she later drifted into edit warring and NPOV violations, unlike many of the contributers in the Israeli-Palestinian arena who were strongly biased and tenditious from day one and should never be allowed back (or banned permanently as many of them are still around), Gila was once a good and productive editor. I would be happy to see her ban lifted for a trial period to see which Gila reappears. Number 57 18:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I normally edit the articles in the List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. I saw some IP-edits on Bayt 'Itab, and was quite certain that was Gilabrand, breaking their topic-ban block. I was not surprised, as Gilabrand has earlier stated: This is a sanction that goes against Wikipedia norms, since the person who complained about me retracted his statement. I will continue to edit as necessary, reverting tendentious edits and removing unneeded tags that are placed on articles out of some political agenda or spite. I will continue to copyedit as necessary, and add content and solid references to articles.

In short, Wikipedia sanctions are apparently not valid for Gilabrand...unless she finds them valid.

The "shared global IP used by a business center"-story is difficult to swallow, given the evidence here.

Having said that, I actually agree with most of what Number 57 said above: Gilabrand can be a productive editor, copy-editing articles etc. But I wish that before you consider unblocking, Gilabrand would A: come clean/explain the evidence cited above, B: accept that sanctions are also valid for her. Huldra (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote the above, I received an email from Gilabrand -which I of course cannot quote from here. However, I then went to her talk-page (which she can edit) and asked her to clarify whether or not she had made the above IP-edits on Bayt 'Itab. She has not yet answered. Huldra (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I can't recall editing with Gilabrand much, except for one minor incident, where I witlessly infringed my topic ban and she got upset, but if I recall correctly did not rush to go for me at AE. I trust Ravpapa, BorisG and Number57's judgement a lot here. The area needs page builders rather than edit monitors, and apparently she was good at content. I think, rather than our opinions, that, as Huldra suggests, she be invited to discuss this directly with the Arbs here in a conversation undisturbed by co-editors, to see if some provisory test return can be thrashed out. TC's concerns about a pattern are legitimate, but we have lost quite a few good editors in the past, and now that strong sanctions that can be applied imediately are in place, there's perhaps room for experiment.Nishidani (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by Ravpapa

with regards to Caslibers request for examples of noncontroversial edits by gilabrand:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Boxer&diff=prev&oldid=429594098
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramot&diff=prev&oldid=429583481
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ramot&diff=prev&oldid=429561408
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lag_BaOmer&diff=prev&oldid=429535886
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahava&diff=prev&oldid=429513948

The overwhelming majority of Gilabrands edits are noncontroversial. --Ravpapa (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mbz1

It is my understanding that it was not proven that Gila was the one who used the very public IP in question. If this is the case, the block should be lifted without pre-conditions.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biosketch

Initially I was opposed to amending anyone's sanctions by granting special amnesty. I felt it would further complicate things in a topic area that's problematic enough with the editors already in it. Since then, though, Nishidani (talk · contribs) had his request for amnesty approved and his contributions to I/P have on the whole been constructive. If Admins were willing to extend to User:Nishidani the benefit of the doubt and leave it to the community to determine whether or not the decision was a wise one, then the same ought to be done in the case of Gilabrand (talk · contribs). Indeed, in just the past couple of weeks I've happened upon User:Gilabrand's name in quite a few important articles, and each time I've found his contributions to be decidedly positive in nature and impressive in scope. My attitude is as that of Soosim (talk · contribs) above: in order to embrace the spirit of Ravpapa (talk · contribs)'s original request with a mind to being fair to all parties involved, and considering Gilabrand's stated commitment to the values and principles of the Project, I encourage the Admins to favor lifting his sanctions and allowing the community to be the judge of his conduct.—Biosketch (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement - hopefully the last - by Ravpapa

In this discussion so far, 16 people have participated. Of those, 14 - representing editors from both sides of the Israel-Palestine area - have supported the amnesty. Two - both administrators, one of whom was the administrator who imposed the original ban - are opposed.

I think that this discussion has been sufficient to reflect the opinion of the I-P editing community, and that an administrator can make a motion and act upon it. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Noted as passed on Aug. 8. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting statements. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still not seeing anything that makes me want to go forward with this... Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• this doesn't make a strong case for it, but the IP edits I saw were pretty straightforward. I am a bit busy IRL ATM, so if folks arguing for/against can show presence/absence of controversial edits from this IP that'd help. In essence, if the IP edits have been constructive, I am open to opening up a way for Gilabrand to return to collaborative editing in the IP area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately as wikipedia grows into more of a polishing, fine-tuning and referencing phase, I believe editors who are highly familiar with a topic area become more and more of an asset as long as they are able to collaborate and negotiate with others. Given any disruptive behaviour will likely be very quickly be pointed out, I am prepared to give a trial unsanction and see where it takes us. If this passes, I strongly urge Gilabrand (actually any editor) to think "common ground", "compromise" and "fine tune" rather than polarising edit wars. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify where you mean Israel-Palestine and where you mean Internet Protocol ? –xeno^talk 16:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Gilabrand: Presently, the amendment request as written only seeks to lift the indefinite block - but not the lifting of the topic ban. If you are unblocked, will you make a greater effort to comply with the topic ban (including not editing while logged out or using other accounts to evade the topic ban)? –xeno^talk 15:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC) cross-posted from user talk:Gilabrand[reply]
• Clarification needed: Does the amendment request seek only the lifting of the indefinite block, or also the lifting of the topic ban? From my read, it's only the former. –xeno^talk 16:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Gilabrand pointed out that the topic ban expired. –xeno^talk 12:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Gilabrand: Could you explain, in your own words, the circumstances leading to your most recent sanction/block; and how you will modify your approach to editing (especially in the conflict area) in the future to avoid further sanctions? –xeno^talk 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not opposed to a trial unblock, but the evasion and lack of evidence that the root cause for the ban in the first place suggests that we might be better off applying WP:OFFER. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generic "I'm going to do things better" promises don't particularly sway me either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If we were to amend this, I think the user should be subject to a topic ban for two months. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  @Timotheus Canens, if they violate the topic ban this time, they will be letting down everyone who stuck their neck out at this amendment request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we should unblock her so that she can comment here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.

For this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 is a majority.

Support

1. (happy with 1RR addition above) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although significant concerns linger regarding Gilabrand's compliance with discretionary sanctions, I am willing to cautiously support in light of the supportive submissions made to this amendment request. –xeno^talk 14:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've copyedited the motion to include a mention of the 1RR restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, with the 1RR. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Discussion