Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.31.246.246 (talk) at 15:46, 21 July 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Request to amend prior case: Nishidani

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

Case affected
West Bank - Judea and Samaria arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Amendments
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Amendment 1

Statement by Ravpapa

This and the following request for amendment regarding Gilabrand 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 following 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.

Nishidani is such an editor. Regardless of his often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages, he is unquestionably one of the most knowledgeable editors to tread in this sensitive topic area. His encyclopedic knowledge of sources was often astounding. His insights into article organization and language were always enlightening. True, he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents; however, unlike other aggravating editors, he not only argued but also made important substantive additions to articles he worked on.

In the discussion leading to this request, editors from both sides of the IP dispute supported a lifting of sanctions against Nishidani and Gilabrand. I fear that by separating the requests, we will turn this into a partisan dispute, something I had hoped to avoid. In any case, I call upon editors from both sides to support the lifting of this ban, as an act of faith in the viability of our project and the belief that knowledgeable editors are a benefit to the project.

Statement by Nableezy

I think this is a no-brainer. In the WB/JS case ArbCom said that work in developing featured class articles in other topic areas would be looked upon favorably in a request for lifting the topic ban. Nishidani has done such work, helping bring the once very poor article Shakespeare authorship question to FA and improving a host of articles related to that, see for example his contributions at History of the Shakespeare authorship question, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, and Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship. Additionally, Nishidani has helped bring the article Al-Azhar Mosque up to GA quality and, if I ever spend the time needed to finish a certain section, nearly up to FA quality, working with an editor who was also banned in the WB/JS case (Jayjg) in doing so. See also his work at Barasana, which looked like this prior to him starting to work on that page, and like this after a few weeks of his working on it. He has also written, largely by himself, the articles Franz Baermann Steiner and Taboo (book).

Ill repeat what I wrote in the now archived "general amnesty" appeal, the restrictions put in place in WB/JS have not made the topic area better in any way. The main instigator of the edit-warring that brought that case about (NoCal100 and his socks, including another party to that case Canadian Monkey) continues to edit with impunity. Nishidani has not chosen to go that way; he has instead edited in a wide range of topics, helping to bring very poor quality articles to a much higher standard.

There are a lot of unsubstantiated accusations made below, some of which merit responses and some of which dont. I wont spend any time on that, but I would like to make one note. When Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below. Those of us who disagree with Jay were silent. The opposition below comes entirely from editors who disagree with Nishidani and wish to maintain a ban on an excellent editor because it is to their advantage. The comments about Nishidani never having contributed any content to the topic area is so utterly ridiculous that I had not responded to it until now, and even now I will only provide a diff of an article that Nishidani is almost entirely responsible for. An article which would be more of a finished product if not for the fact that after spending a great deal of time and energy expanding the material on the Jewish history of the village, a sockpuppet tag team drove him off of the article when he turned his attention to the Palestinian history of the village. The topic area is filled with examples of Nishidani's work.

However, the appeal is not about what Nishidani did prior to being banned. Ynhockey's accusation that Nishidani has not worked on any good articles or featured articles while he was banned is demonstrably untrue; links in my original statement demonstrate that his accusation is false. Nishidani has indeed worked on featured content, helping to bring very poor articles, or non-existent ones, up to such a status. That those who oppose his views on the I-P conflict also oppose this request is not surprising, though it is disappointing that they chose to make such false charges against him to argue that his ban be maintained. I hope the committee will see through the comments of those that have been in conflict with him and instead make their decision based on the actual evidence. nableezy - 15:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Michael C Price

I agree with Ravpapa about Nishidani's "often caustic and highly irritating comments on talk pages" and "he has an undisputed talent for aggravating his opponents". Do we really want to let such a battlefield mentality editor loose again, without a clear acknowledgement of change of heart? I note that he regards himself as essentially innocent, in a recent statement blaming his ban on a "stray remark", and is presumably unrepentant. As Boris remarked "it is not easy to earn a permaban by a slip of the tongue". Indeed.

Note to Nishidani, yes, I am being selective in quoting Ravpapa - because I don't agree with the rest of his statement! :-)
I prefer not to be cited selectively. - BorisG (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I support this amendment due to Nishidani's extremely helpful contributions at Shakespeare authorship question (SAQ). I started following the turmoil and article development at SAQ in October 2010 after seeing the matter raised at a noticeboard. I had no knowledge of Nishidani before then, and have never looked at P-I issues. At SAQ, I saw a tremendous amount of disruption from people wanting to promote the UNDUE notion that Shakespeare did not write his plays. Eventually, an ArbCom case resolved the disruption allowing the two main editors of the article (Tom Reedy and Nishidani), with several other expert editors, to continue article development with the result that it was promoted to FA in April 2011. Every step of the process was strenuously opposed by disruptive editors, and I observed that Nishidani remained calm and helpful despite a lot of provocation. Some recent discussions, now here, show some diffs of Nishidani falling short of CIVIL, but that was in May 2010 and involved an editor who was repeatedly misreading sources, and who is now topic banned for a year, while Nishidani has never been sanctioned regarding the SAQ area. Certainly Nishidani is now fully aware of the requirements for editing and civil collaboration, and there is no reason to maintain a topic ban.

Nishidani's knowledge is extraordinary, and he has excellent access to resources. Removing a topic ban is likely to assist the encyclopedia and cannot do harm since WP:ARBPIA allows sanctions to be readily applied should the need arise. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

Michael, the diff you cite in evidence against me does not support the deduction you make from it, and I would appreciate you clarifying on what evidence you base your contention that I regard myself as 'innocent', esp. since in the diff I clearly admit that I did break the rules, (in reverting 4 editors) and that Arbcom exercised its proper right to punish me for my infringement. Namely, I wrote, contrary to your inference that I was protesting my innocence, that

'In a stray remark, I failed the test, and I cannot complain that I was asked to pay the penalty for that lapse. They were perfectly right technically.'

Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your reply, changing 'innocent' to 'essentially innocent' doesn't help, nor does selective quotation for advantage. The phrase 'stray remark' refers to this diff on the original Arbcom charge sheet. One is obliged to AGF which here, particularly in regard to the sockteam operating there, I did not. That is an actionable infraction technically, and therefore Arbcom was, I repeat, wholly within its remit and rights to punish me for it. One cannot be 'innocent', let alone 'essentially innocent' when one breaks a rule in witting disregard for sanctions. May I remind you that the proposer and those who second his suggestion, request an amnesty, not a retrial on some spurious late defence that I might be innocent of the original charge, as you appear to insinuate by suggesting I am here to protest my innocence. Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael. I know many are tempted to speedread in here, but you have, again, misunderstood. 'Selective quotation' refers to your use of my comments, in the diff you added, not your citations from Ravpapa and BorisG. I have no animus against those who might entertain a spirit of enmity against me in this place. I do tend to get my metaphorical knickers in a twist, or to be more gender-consonant, my bowels in a knot, when long arguments ensue from habits of misreading everything one's interlocutor says. May I Cromwellize this rather fiddlesticky exchange? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken about what you think I said. Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to JClemens, I confess I do not quite 'wish' to return to the I/P area. Several fellow editors have expressed some confidence in the idea that, if I mend my scabrous tongue, and learn to refrain from, to misquote Sir Thomas Browne, abusing the incivility of my knee, I might prove helpful in the area they edit. However the vote swings, or I swing, I owe them a vote of thanks for their solicitude in expressing a desire to have me back as a colleague there. This motion imposes on me a sense of obligation, if the amnesty is passed, to work in a manner that will not disappoint their confidence.Nishidani (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peter Cohen

I support this amendment. Nishidani is a very able and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia. Like JayJG, he has contributed high quality work in areas not covered by the ban.

Wikipedia is not some cult or extremist party where editors are expected to make obsequious replies to "just criticism". Shortly after the original punishment, Nishidani attempted to retire at a round number of edits which I think was 13K. he is now approaching 20K edits. He has not been blocked for over two years and does not attract much admin criticism. Although Michael note that Nishidani can be ascerbic, he has not produced evidence newer than the year-old edits in the other thread.

He is therefore someone whose presence is generally a benefit to the project and I think that Wikipedia can afford to take a small risk in lifting the topic ban in the same way that it did with JayJG with no subsequent problematic repercussions.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Broccolo

I strongly oppose this amendment. I agree that Nishidani is a veryable and intelligent contributor to Wikipedia, but he has violated his topic ban many times. For instance Nishidani inserted himself in the discussions directly related to I/P conflict, including introducing hate propaganda anti-Israeli cartoon

Besides it is my understanding that Nishidani was not very civil editing in other areas of the project:

  • [[1]] “Oh dear, man. Learn to read!...I'm presuming you are not an adolescent struggling in remedial classes in English, while you edit with furor here.”
  • [[2] – “Are you just acting DUMB?...a reflection that English is not your mother tongue."

I do not believe I/P topic will benefit from this user incivility. Broccolo (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these edits are from this year and some were considered in the SAQ arbcom case without action being deemed necessary.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the differences that prove that Nishidani has violated his topic ban and was uncivil while editing in another topics. Here is the difference from this year that proves BATTLEGROUND behavior of the user. Please read what Nishidani responded when asked by another editor why he is commenting in the meditation he refused to join.
There is a difference between posting new sanctions and lifting old ones. Nishidani has repeatedly violated his topic ban, Nishidani has repeatedly demonstrated incivility and BATTLEGROUND behavior, and his topic ban should not be lifted. Broccolo (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything particularly battleground in that and I note it seems to have survived purges by the mediation moderators. It does explain why someone I had not heard of is taking interest in this thread.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ynhockey

As I said in the proposal from a few days ago, and say again now, the last thing the I–P area needs is bringing back problematic editors. There are enough problems as it is, and there is no doubt that this editor was not banned for nothing. Broccoli above presents a solid evidenced case why there is absolutely no reason to lift the ban.

Moreover, the condition for lifting the ban was that the editor continues to contribute to Wikipedia in a significant way. With due respect to Nishidani's contributions, he has not written any FAs or GAs or even DYKs lately (as far as I can tell), did not participate in the major backlog drives, and mostly continued his pattern of editing little but writing TLDR talk page comments that waste everyone else's time, only now outside of I–P (about 64% of Nishidani's latest 500 edits, for example, are on various talk pages, which isn't necessarily a problem, but for anyone who remembers the case and why Nishidani was banned, it is). I feel that Wikipedia has not lost a major asset by banning Nishidani from the topic area, and won't lose anything by not lifting the ban. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of quoting statistics, are you able to identify any problematic in the approx 320 talk page edits of which you speak? They would at least constitute more recent evidence than that put forward so far.--Peter cohen (talk)
I don't need to find "actionable" evidence because I'm not advocating that Nishidani be sanctioned, rather I'm asking that his sanctions not be lifted. There's a big difference. All I need to show is that Nishidani's editing pattern has largely remained the same. This in itself is a reason for not lifting the sanction. Also, please make further comments in your section per page guidelines. —Ynhockey (Talk) 19:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by No More Mr Nice Guy

@Jclemens - The "portion of the community commenting here" consists mainly of editors heavily involved in the topic area Nishidani was banned from. There are only two editors I don't recognize from I/P articles (in which I am also involved, for the record). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you count the same too as me, their presence can be explained by one agreeing with Nishidani over the SAQ business and the other disagreeing with him over Ebionites.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the people who agree with him want the topic ban lifted, and those who don't, don't. And nobody else cares. What a surprise. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer. In the little interaction I had with Nishidani, I found him to be combative, condescending and long winded. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@nableezy - The main reason that "when Jayjg appealed his ban, you did not see editors who hold opposing views as him making such comments as the ones seen below" is that Jayjg doesn't antagonize editors holding opposing views like Nishidani does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brewcrewer

I have no idea why Nishidani would want to have the topic ban lifted. He does not appear to have any history of solid contributions to the Israel-Arab topic. All I remember about Nishidani are his huge blocs of text he added to talk pages in which little was understood save for his belittlement of other editors. I am open to being corrected of course. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Biosketch

I'm thoroughly opposed to the idea of granting amnesty to banned users, regardless of whose side they're against. I'm not familiar with either of the two editors on whose behalf the amendment is being sought – though I suppose I do indirectly bear the blame for Gilabrand (talk · contribs)'s ban) – but my opinion based on my experience in the I/P topic area thus far is that more editors should be sanctioned, not have their sanctions rescinded. The topic area is bad enough with the small number of disruptive participants already involved in it. Opening the door for even more disruption will be a disaster.—Biosketch (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@BorisG (talk · contribs), it's likely that the reason there are so few regular contributors in the I/P topic area is because of the intimidating atmosphere engendered by editors who don't know how to manage their anger and for whom assuming bad faith is the default option. I'm beginning to understand who among the regular contributors is genuinely devoted to improving articles and collaborating with unlike-minded editors and who is here primarily for amusement and to promote an agenda. This isn't the place to name names beyond the two individuals in regards to whom this Amendment is being sought – but specifically in their case, from what I've been able to gather, their sanctions were imposed on account of their inability to work constructively with the general community. It's my opinion that more users who demonstrate such inability should be banned. In the long run, it will be to the benefit of the topic area.—Biosketch (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

Biosketch has an interesting view. But: the vast majority of contributors to the I/P topic area have, shall we say, very strong views one way or the other. If we topic ban all of them, no one will be left to contrtibute. Thus any bans have to be weighed against past and potential contributions of the user(s) in question. In short: no users - no disruption, but also no content.

Even if it is true that more editors need to be banned, this needs to be consistent. I do not see that Nishidani is any more disruptive than a number of other editors. He is under such a drastic sanction because it was an ArbCom case. I think on this basis, Nishidani's ban needs to be lifted. He will certainly be under very close scrutiny.

One concern I do have is conflicting and confusing messages from Nishdani. On one hand, he says that he has retired partly because he was prevented from contributing to the I/P topic area. On the other hand, he says now he is not keen to return to this area. According to his talk page he is retired, but according to the user page, semi-retired. A bit confusing. BorisG (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Biosketch, your general point is taken. Basically, you are saying that my equation 'no users - no disruption, but also no content' is simplistic and incorrect because as we ban more disruptive users, others less disruptive will join in. Well, possibly. But in any case, I have (briefly) looked at Nishidali's ArbCom case, and I did not find his behaviour so outrageous as to warrant such a drastic sanction. Also I have looked at all the diffs presented here by opponents of the lifting of the ban, and they are not particularly compelling. Besides, I almost always believe in the second chance. The risks are actually minimal, as he will be under severe scrutiny. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Carter

As is noted in the decision itself, as well as in the comments lifting JayJG's restriction, any edits to the pages in question will remain subject to discretionary sanctions. That being the case, I believe that it is not unreasonable to lift Nishidani's existing restrictions as well. As is the case for JayJG, and, really, any and all other editors who will ever edit the related pages in question so long as the discretionary sanctions remain in effect, any misconduct they might make from this point forward may well cause the placement of sanctions of some sort on that editor. Personally, I think that those sanctions could, reasonably, include temporary topic bans, if such were indicated. Nishidani is a good editor who has done very good work in recently helping to bring at least one other contentious and difficult article, the Shakespeare authorship question, to FA. He appears to have demonstrated a significant degree of knowledge regarding this topic as well. That being the case, I can see no good reason to continue to permanently keep a good editor who is knowledgable about the subject and apparently willing to work on it from doing so. Should the misconduct recur in a non-trivial way, a block or temporary ban could be restored, or potentially edits to the article pages themselves placed on him. (A single instance of moderately insulting someone would at least to my eyes qualify as a trivial example of misconduct, for instance.) But I don't think it necessarily makes sense to keep a good and productive editor from being able to edit content he has, apparently, already demonstrated an ability to improve. John Carter (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono

Why? The editor has been semi-retired or retired for a bit. He even says that he does not wish to return. We don't need him and he appears to be fine with it. He thinks that simply biting his tongue will be sufficient? Why hasn't he made a statement acknowledging that he understands that his bias has been a hurdle to editing constructively and that is something he promises to keep in check? If he would have not violated his topic ban multiple times (see the warning last September) and then not made completely unneeded and possibly baiting commentary disguised as a "note to self" in March[3] then maybe I would believe that there could be some change. I also believe the never archived nsection at the top oh his talk page is still a concern even if consensus was otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to saying "I told you so". General amnesty picked by an editor seemingly at random? One of them has no chance at coming back (see below) and another all of a sudden can even though they have not made it clear that they actually understand what they did wrong (edit warring and a sharp tongue are one thing, but completely ignoring the goals of this project by not keeping an seemingly uncontrollable bias in check is another). The requester (not even the editors in question) actually asked at the collaboration page what difference the sanctions have made. To paraphrase my answer: It is quite now but as editors get off their blocks it will all start up again. How many more AEs do we need?Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The portion of the community commenting here seems to reasonably support ending Nishidani's topic ban. If there's anything missing, it's an assertion that this editor wants to edit the topic area and expresses the desire to do so in line with community guidelines... but I suspect that's implied. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to give it a go and lift the sanction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could give this a chance. Shell babelfish 23:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's acceptable to lift our restriction and leave it up to the community if they want to enact their own measures. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted by Johnuniq and John Carter, the area is under discretionary sanctions - so any regression to past problematic behaviour could be handled at WP:AE. As the topic ban was placed over 2 years ago, it is not unreasonable to lift to determine if it has become unnecessary. –xenotalk 14:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motion

The editing restrictions placed on Nishidani (talk · contribs) in the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case are lifted effective at the passage of this motion. Nishidani is reminded that articles in the area of conflict, which is identical to the area of conflict as defined by the Palestine-Israel articles case, remain the subject of discretionary sanctions; should he edit within this topic area, those discretionary sanctions continue to apply.

Majority reference

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed (adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria#Amendments). –xenotalk 14:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [talk] [prof] 13:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Okay. Mailer Diablo 17:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Request to amend prior case: Gilabrand

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

Amendment 1

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]

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 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:

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

Clerk notes

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

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 ? –xenotalk 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)? –xenotalk 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. –xenotalk 16:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Gilabrand pointed out that the topic ban expired. –xenotalk 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? –xenotalk 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=440669803"