User talk:Gilabrand

Archives This editor is a Master Editor III and is entitled to display this Bufonite Editor Star. This user has been on Wikipedia for 18 years, 8 months and 6 days. This user is one of the 2000 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is being watched by 109 other editors.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

*User:Gilabrand/Awards and barnstars

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For working on an article that you felt shouldn't even exist and helping to bring it up, even if temporarily, to encyclopedic standards. Nableezy (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Jewish Barnstar
		For editing the page Jerusalem stone.Elan26 (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

I, For all your copyedits and improvements to Tel Aviv Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC), award you this Bagel of Zion for improving the coverage of ציון. Remember not to edit on empty stomach.[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I hereby award you The Photographer's Barnstar for the beautiful photos of Israel and Jewish stuff you have taken and graced Wikipedia with! I had noticed your contrbution way back in July 2007! The one of the Dome of the Rock viewed through the Cotton Merchants Gate (right) is my favourite! Happy snapping! Chesdovi (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on Hat, I hereby award you this barnstar. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This award is given to User:Gilabrand in recognition of all your imaginative and original photographs related to topics about Israel and Judaism, as can be seen on your user page. In particular, I was impressed by how many of these photographs enhance so many articles about people, places and things in Israel. Mazal Tov and may you be blessed to continue contributing to Wikipedia in this productive fashion for a long time to come. See Wikipedia:Barnstars: "The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work..." and you most certainly deserve it. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I was going to give you the copyeditor's barnstar, but I then realized that would be shortchanging your many other valuable contributions to and helping out with Israel and Judaism related articles. Much appreciated! nadav (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all your quality contributions to Israel-related articles, you fully deserve this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		i frummer give you this award for all the great work you've put into many judaism, jewish and israel relates articles, all the while steering clear of controversy! ..thnx Gila!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For the excellent editting and formatting that helped lead to Israel's promotion to featured article status. --Jdcaust 16:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Jewish Barnstar
		I award you with this Jewish Barnstar Award for your helping keep the Judaism article up to standards. Keep up Your Good Work! Nimrauko 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For defending Wikipedia from all lies-on-the-ground :).--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Wiki Award In recognition of all the work you’ve done lately! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.2.33 (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been busy today with some great editing, so here's a falafel. Sit back and enjoy. Jethro B 23:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your tireless contribution and efforts. E3 (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Awesome job as always. Itsalleasy (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Gilabrand,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

In the Wikidata page of Harashim (Wikidata:Q2890766), can you replace the photo File:זריחה 19-1-2013 1.JPG with the photo that actually shows the village File:תצלום אוירי מקורי של חרשים.jpg?

I could not do it, because of technical problems.

Yours sincerely, 31.200.18.161 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, but got a message that the change couldn't be published because of some formatting issue. Maybe ask someone who has more technical expertise.--Geewhiz (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recommendation. 31.200.18.161 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

The page Magshimey Herut has been proposed for deletion. I see that you recently put work into the article, so perhaps you may want to chime in on the deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magshimey Herut

thanks!Mistamystery (talk) 05:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You broke the page when you did that. It contained a 10-20 year old standard for Notes before the modern Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).. Wikipedia contain a lot of old style markup code that need to be left alone. Dave-okanagan (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the problems going on at Jay Ruderman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), edit summaries are a necessity for editors to work together to resolve the situation. Please be more careful. - Hipal (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for persistent violations of your topic ban after having been twice blocked for the same in the past, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

These edits (1 2 3), all of which are from this month, are bright-line violations of your topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict and Palestine. Furthermore, these other recent edits (4 5 6 7 8 9), while individually minor violations, together constitute a clear pattern of ignoring the boundaries of your topic ban. This evidence, combined with the 2 previous blocks for violating this topic ban and 12 earlier blocks, mostly for disruption in this topic area, convinces me that no temporary block will be adequate to prevent further disruption. Note that, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Duration of restrictions, after 1 year this becomes appealable under standard unblock procedures. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What??? There must be some mistake here. I have been editing for years and years, and made a very conscious effort to edit productively on a wide variety of subjects, many of them connected to Israel, but not touching on issues related to the conflict. I am pretty much in shock. The diffs you are citing are, what can I say? Lame is not the word...Please take a closer look at my contributions over the years - and undo this block. Thanks.--Geewhiz (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very highly recommend that this be scaled back considerably if not entirely. Honestly, Gila should have just appealed this sanction years ago, and absent these latest violations probably would have been successful doing so. Remind her that she is still topic banned if you like, but this is overkill. nableezy - 01:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at all the edits that were given above as a reason for a ban, and I did not see one that was controversial in the least. These were all very small routine edits, it looks to me. I think the Admin is following guidelines, but this looks like definite overkill. The editor can be reminded and warned when and if they cross the line, but to ban such a veteran contributor for the edits above seems to me to unwarranted. I would also suggest that it be scaled back. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Warshy how many warnings would you suggest is an appropriate number? Gila has been blocked at least eight times previously for violations of restrictions and the purpose of the topic ban is to keep Gila away from a topic area where she cannot or will not edit in line with policy. I'll grant you the line might not always be obvious but there are 6.7 million articles in this encyclopaedia so it's not as if it's inevitable that somebody would fall afoul of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since her unblock in 2015 till this block she has been blocked twice in the 8 years since. I submit to you even if those blocks are totally merited, even if Gilabrand should never touch an ARBPIA topic again, that the lets say 50 edits that she should not have made in those 8 years stacked up against the 20,164 edits she has made in that time do not merit an indefinite block. Remind her of the topic ban, even with another month long block if you want, but you are doing Wikipedia a disservice by blocking her indefinitely. And I say this as somebody who I am certain Gila does not like in the slightest. nableezy - 21:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the history. Look at who unblocked Gila in 2015 and indeed who imposed the topic ban in the first place. The obvious counter argument, and what it appears led Leeky to make the block indefinite, is that Gila has sat out two previous three-month blocks for topic ban violations, so what would another definite-duration block achieve? An indef can't be sat out and would require something affirmative from Gila for it to be lifted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. But Harry, even if she sits it out, you get an average of 3 years and 2500 edits of great work in between. My guy, it isnt that serious. This is slap on the wrist and ask her to be more mindful again and let her work on the things she does for free for this place. nableezy - 22:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nableezy, of course, and I thank him for trying to get the record straight here. I would suggest that warnings or even time-limited bans should be given here if she makes any edits that are controversial in the topic, even slightly so. But, as I said, I don't see anything that rises to that level in all the edits you listed above. I am asking Gila personally to be always aware of the ban, and to try and comply with it from now on, whenever she makes an edit. If she agrees to try and comply with this request here, I'd suggest we try again, starting with warnings, self-reversions, and even time-limited bans, if she doesn't comply with her plea to do so. Thank you again for being open to even discuss this sensitive matter here, and for being open to at least listening to our suggestions. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 00:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back when Gilabrand had full ARBPIA rights, working with her was a chore due to her strong bias and disruptive style. So I believe her topic ban is justified and I would oppose any appeal with stronger language than I allow myself on this talk page. When she edits on innocuous matters, on the other hand, her work is valuable. The problem is how to get the best without also getting the worst, and I have no suggestions except to enforce the ban. An indef is harsher than necessary, but why would a mere warning achieve what actual blocks failed to achieve in the past? Zero^talk 07:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to opine that Gilbrand's description of Theleakycauldon's diffs as "lame is not the word", when in fact that they are completely blatant and obvious, indicates that she really doesn't get it. Zero^talk 07:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gilabrand. This message is being sent to inform you that a request for a contributor copyright investigation has been filed at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions to Wikipedia in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. Thank you. Hog Farm _Talk 23:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gilabrand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am reaching out to kindly request a review of the recent suspension placed on my account, after spending the last 18 years giving of my time and energy to this project. I have over 72,000 edits to my credit. I have been so taken aback by this unexpected action (no advance notice, no edit-warring, no dispute with anyone), I am almost at a loss for words (which is rare for me). I assure you that my contributions were made in complete good faith, including the ones that some interpret as violating a topic ban that I have been careful to adhere to for the last 8 years (although there may have been slip-ups here and there, and as Nableezy has rightly commented, I ought to have appealed years ago). Allow me to say that on the few occasions that ban violations were brought to my attention, I was quick to revert as requested. An example: here.

I am keen on maintaining the integrity and the accuracy of the content on Wikipedia, which has been the driving force behind my long-term commitment, and whatever complaints certain editors have had against me in the olden days, I believe there has been no repetition of any of that for decades. Many years have gone by during which I have a proven track record of working productively. I have added sourced content to thousands of entries, copyedited the English, written new articles and added images where there were none. Since my edits often involve topics related to Israel and Israeli people, I occasionally encounter gray areas requiring judgment calls - particularly in articles that are not clearly marked as falling under ARBPIA constraints but may contain sentences related to the conflict. If my appeal is accepted, I intend to avoid these gray areas with greater care.

I am open to engaging in dialogue to address any concerns you may have and do what is needed to rectify the situation. I hope someone will realize that I may be old but I still have something to offer. Somehow, I don’t feel ready to be put out on the ice floe. I urge you to reconsider this block, to weigh the positive against the negative, and allow me to continue serving the Wikipedia community.

Decline reason:

There is consensus at AN that the block is appropriate, as such your appeal is declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've formatted your request and placed it at the bottom, for proper discussion flow. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this request is for an arbitration enforcement block, is this the statement that you want placed on the appropriate noticeboard? 331dot (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Geewhiz (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want it at AE or AN (I would suggest AN personally)? nableezy - 21:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what the difference is, but if you say AN, then it's fine with me. Do I have to do something?

Best, G Geewhiz (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd have said there's more chance of the block being reviewed at AE and less chance of it descending into a morass of back and forth. It's one of the things I like about AE. But the choice is yours, Gila. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the general editor base is more forgiving than just the admins who patrol AE. But yes it is your choice Gila. If you want it decided by only uninvolved admins then AE, if you want it more a jury of your peers so to speak then AN. nableezy - 13:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should watch and be prepared to respond. Also, if you're willing to take some advice, things like I wonder how many of you can say you have over 72,000 edits to your credit. are not going to go over well. What any unblock request needs is a demonstration of an understanding of why you are blocked and, more than that, an understanding of what you will do to avoid such a thing in the future. What you need to do is acknowledge the edits were topic ban violations, and commit to doing your best to avoiding them. But you can also say that when others had approached you with past ban violations you immediately self-reverted (eg here). And that you will do your best to abide by the ban unless and until it is lifted, but that respectfully editors should be given a chance to correct an issue before it escalates to blocks, we do it all the time for one-revert rule violations. Ill wait for one more confirmation that the statement in your unblock request is what you want copied over and then do it for you when I see it. nableezy - 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of the outcome of the appeal, this editor should remain blocked for copyright violations. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gilabrand. MER-C 19:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So here is a revised statement which I would like to submit to AN, as recommended by Nableezy. Many thanks for the helpful comments.Geewhiz (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and notified blocking admin. nableezy - 22:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]