Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests‎ | Case  (Redirected from Wikipedia:ARBPIA3)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: L235 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Seraphimblade (Talk) & Doug Weller (Talk)


Case opened on 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 15:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 14:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 00:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

A case of possible administrator abuse; DR unnecessary.

(for the record - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC))

  • Malik warned [1]
  • Malik blocked and reblocked [2] (Chillum, Mike V, and KTC)

Preliminary statements

Statement by Ceradon

I believe we may have a case of abuse of administrator tools. The earliest example is likely here: [3], where Malik Shabazz revdels one of his own disparaging comments. Then, here: [4], where Shabazz says "suck my dick, ass hole" while giving Brad Dyer an ANI notice. Then here, [5], where Shabazz says, "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?". Now, RevDel criterion 3 states that "grossly inappropriate threats or attacks" may be revdelled. However, Shabazz, despite (or in spite of) his block, unrevdels that particular diff with the summary: "Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is [sic] you want, I won't". On his talk page, he says, in reference to Chillum, "You can suck my dick, too, asshole" [6]. And here [7], Shabazz states: "Now when the fuck is somebody going to address the fact that the Jewboy is harassing me? Or is only okay to hound niggers off Wikipedia?" Our policy on administrator conduct states: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status." Shabazz, on August 8, revdeled one of his own disparaging comments. It begs the question, what else has he hidden. How much else has flown under the radar. Shabazz has been an administrator for 8 years. I hate finger-wagging, but he should know better. I think there is enough material here for a case. Thank you, --ceradon (talkedits) 01:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I should add, that Shabazz was blocked by Chillum for 2 days as a result of personal attacks., and reblocked by Mike V for misuse of talk page privileges, and then reblocked again by KTC for abuse of admin tools. --ceradon (talkedits) 01:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @L235: Done. --ceradon (talkedits) 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: That is suggestive, and I have struck it. But I honestly hope this isn't a permanent desysop. Malik was provoked, it's easy to see, but it doesn't excuse his behavior, and his use of admin tools while blocked. Malik is angry. He should have a time to cool down. But if he is angry, it should not be at our peril. Leaving a person who is pissed off to infinity with the keys to the castle is the fucking height of stupidity. A temporary desysop was in order. But now that he no longer has his tools, I would probably want the Committee to suspend this case and allow the community to discuss it further. Maybe if there is consensus for a desysop, the desysop can stand, and if there isn't it can be removed. That's up to the Committee though. --ceradon (talkedits) 02:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know if the Committee will find enough evidence to take a case, and I don't have any comment on that. But if the only think that can be used against Malik is what I have brought here today, I believe he should be allowed his bit back. Malik works in some very contentious and difficult areas, and endures a massive amount of hate for it (the RevDel log on his talk page is evidence enough). To leave him desysopped would be an absolute and unequivocal injustice incomparable to anything I've seen on Wikipedia. For all the shit he takes, he is allowed one misstep, I think. --ceradon (talkedits) 03:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In regards to whether this should be full case: I think the conduct of Brad Dyer should be examined. And, since there is at least the possibility that this might result in a permanent desysop, I think a full case is necessary. --ceradon (talkedits) 04:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

Malik and Brad Dyer entered into a content dispute which apparently turned nasty on both sides (documented here. Malik appears to have taken it far further including a number of personal attacks and eventually a block of him, him doing a page unprotect through the block [8](Chillium), and block extension (KTC). Having used admin functions in a personal dispute with other users through a block, it appears that a temporary desysop may be required, possibly by motion. Full case may or may not be required. Malik is not known to me to have had behavior issues prior to this incident, this is unlike him.

  • Yeah, I had a typo that caused subst not to, and it took forever for mine to "take effect", but yes a merge is fine. I'm going to grab some header stuff out of my filing and add it here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Additional note: Someone with some time to do so needs to closely examine the discussions leading up to the bad behavior for taunting or other behavior that might explain why a longstanding well liked admin suddenly reacted like this. I haven't yet and it needs to be done, and I don't have enough time to do so until later tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Malik Shabazz

This is a copy of the e-mail message I sent ArbCom last night. "Under a cloud" my ass.

I initiated a complaint at AN/I because Brad Dyer, one of the dozens of pro-Israel single-purpose accounts that plague Wikipedia, was harassing me. You can read (what's left of) my complaint to see the details. What nobody seems to understand is that it should never be acceptable to refer to a Black man as "sonny boy". Brad Dyer has successfully hounded me off Wikipedia. You can all suck my balls, assholes, because all you did was delete my complaint.
So please take my tools. And go to hell.
Sincerely,
Malik Shabazz (sent 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC))

And Chillum, I was wrong to call the people at AN/I jackasses. I should have just called you a jackass. You didn't (and still don't) give a fuck that somebody was harassing me, but when I used the word Jewboy that got your attention. I'll reiterate: The Jewboy has chased the nigger off Wikipedia. Congratulations. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, ArbCom, for considering re-sysoping me, but I fell short of the standards I set for myself a long time ago and I resigned the bit.
This whole thing started because Brad Dyer was butthurt that I caught him plagiarizing from The New York Times. Somebody at Wikipedia must think COPYVIO is a big deal, because it's the first of several notices that appear above the edit box, but it sure isn't the admin corps. When Brad complained about my edit summary, I pointed out that his COPYVIO was the real issue, but nobody gave a damn. (Nobody cared about his personal attacks either, but that's par for the course.) That emboldened him to, as he acknowledged, hound me to an article he had never edited before and try to pull a tit-for-tat—except I hadn't added text to the article. My response could have been more diplomatic, but I stand by its substance.
I'd like to respond to two specific charges made against me on this page. Ceradon, who initiated this action, wrote "Shabazz, on August 8, revdeled one of his own disparaging comments. It begs the question, what else has he hidden. How much else has flown under the radar." I removed that edit summary at Brad Dyer's request only because nobody else would. My name is among the top users of RevDel, and I encourage you to review the material I've deleted. Hammersoft found four edit summaries in which I used four-letter words; I encourage you to look at the context in which those edits were made.
Once again, I'd like to thank the people who have had kind things to say about/to me. I'm sorry that my recent actions on Wikipedia have been inappropriate, and I'm especially sorry that they have undercut some of the nice things you have said about me and my work here. With that, I'm officially retired. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Chillum

The facts of this case are clear and not much is left but interpretation. WP:ADMIN says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." These are not just pretty words for me, they are policy and they are a damn good idea.

In my opinion the abuse given out by Malik Shabazz is incompatible with being an administrator. We just cannot have admins calling people "Jewboy" and expect to be taken seriously.

Beyond the conduct unbecoming an admin we have at least two examples of abuse of admin tools. The revdel of his own comment which contained a personal attack in an apparent effort to hide it and the use of the revdel tool while blocked to restore his own comment which also contained a personal attack.

I feel the evidence in this case will be well documented, however if diffs are desired for anything I have claimed I will happily provide them. I think it is important that the community see that we do indeed have civility standards for at least our administrators. Chillum 01:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Could you show me some diff that indicates that the revdel of the personal attack was done out of a sense of regret rather than a desire to conceal that behaviour? I admit I am not familiar with the context of the post and subsequent revdel. Chillum 02:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I concede the possibility. It changes little in my opinion as that was the act I had the least objection too. Chillum 02:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For those who wish for him to have his admin status restored based on this being an isolated incident I can certainly hold out hope for that myself. However so far all we have gotten from this user is more insults after the block, use of tools after talk page access was removed, and more insults and blaming others when talk page access was restored. I would like to see an admission that the users actions were not appropriate for an administrator and a clear plan on how this will be avoided in the future. As long as this user stands by their actions and blames others I would would call the idea of returning the tools a non-starter. Chillum 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I did not ask for grovelling, no need to mis-characterize what I said. I asked for a sign that he is now ready to return. He had his talk page access returned and he used it to call the folks at ANI jackasses and to blame others for his action. Surely a bad sign. It would be irresponsible to assume he is now ready to behave as expected without some level of commitment from him, and yes I do think that includes taking personal responsibility.

If this user cannot at the very least explain why this won't happen again then we cannot return the bit. I don't think the 8 years of good behaviour is proof it won't happen again because it did not stop it from happening the first time, I want to hear from his mouth that this is not going to repeat. Chillum 16:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: please do not tell me what I do and do not give a fuck about. I am heartbroken at how things have turned out. Chillum 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@StevenJ81: I have responded to you on my talk page, my section here is already getting very long. Chillum 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by KTC

Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks applies to everyone, and that includes if someone was responding to incivility that were directed at them. The comments by Brad Dyer was totally unacceptable, but undoubtedly so were Malik Shabazz's responses, who as an administrator was held to a higher standard of civility. Having said that, this would had ended at the original 48 hours block if Malik just walked away at that point, maybe even an unblock if he recognised the comments were inappropriate and agreed to stop. Instead, Malik continued with [9][10] on his talk page, which led to his having talk page access revoked, at which time he admined through his block in a manner connected to that block.

Admining through a block, especially in relation to that block is understood by every admin to be a desysop offence. Doing so to reinstate a personal attack that one were blocked for is simply conduct unbecoming.

While I do have sympathy with Malik given the incivility that had been directed at him, and his apparent (given the many testimonies here, ANI, and his talk page) many years of dedicated unblemished service to the project up to this point, he has obviously not recognised what went wrong from his side and is continuing with the same conduct still. -- KTC (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brad_Dyer

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

  • @Georgewilliamherbert and Ceradon: Any objections to merging the two requests? L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero, Courcelles, and GorillaWarfare: Query for the arbs, are you voting for the level 1 on-wiki? Have the proper procedural requirements (arbcom-l and communication with all arbs with all mediums) been done? Should this be taken as a formal request for a bureaucrat to take action, or should the crats wait until the notices are posted to WP:ACN and WP:BN before actioning, per WP:LEVEL1? Thanks - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Appears I spoke too soon for the second question, but the first few probably still need a bit of clarification.. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/4/0/2>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Noting that several checkusers, myself and Guerillero included, have looked at this, and found no evidence of a compromised account. Courcelles (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • With three votes, I have asked at BN for this to be enacted. Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @L235:, this mess broke quickly, but, yes, there has been a thread on arbcom-l about it, and there has been no objection to a level 1. Courcelles (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Now that the level I is in effect, let us all slow down and take a breath. The use of admin tools as they were used while blocked was the major issue here. We don't level 1 for insults, even extreme ones, that is the realm of the block and revoke talk access functions. Those are the realm of a case, or a normal desysop by motion. Level I is an extremely rare thing, I would never have considered a level 1 without the direct use of the admin tools while blocked. Now we have the time to think and reflect and let everything cool down. A Level 1 is not a final decision. A level 1 is not a decision made by a majority of the committee. Now, I think we need to slow down, to let Malik Shabazz respond. The level 1 is explicitly not a final decision, and now we need to process this like a normal case request. I think what has to happen now is one of three things. Either the tools can be restored, a permanent revocation passed by normal motion, or a case opened to look this. I'm thinking this is a complicated mess, and now that the immediate problem is over, that we might actually need a case. Courcelles (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why Roger says that Level 1 is for "situations where a (compromised or otherwise) admin account goes on the rampage inflicting damage on the encyclopedia's infrastructure." given that in any circumstance like that, a 'crat or steward would be fully justified in pulling the bit and asking questions later. And I damned well hope they would rather than waiting around for three arbs -- none of which this year have the technical ability to remove admin bits -- to sign off on something so blatant. (You could almost call that level 0, I guess) Level 1 is for things that need to be done now, and this did need to be done due to the rather obvious prohibition of a blocked admin using their tools. We use Level II for far less immediate situations, such as when an admin has been caught socking. Down to brass tacks: The presumption on a level 1 is that the tools can be restored easily in proverbial morning. What we have here is a total mess, but one that had admin tools not been used, would have been dealt with at ANI, and was being dealt with. Malik Shabazz, is, as many have said, an admin of a record of long tenure and honourable service. I'd be prepared to reverse the desysop if Malik Shabazz were to come back, and publicly commits not to ever use his tools while blocked or in a dispute again, I never, ever intended this desysop to be permanent or the final word on anything. I guess accept to look into the matter fully, including the actions of Brad Dyer and others involved. But I remain open to the idea a motion could dispose of this to most parties' satisfaction. Courcelles (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I also support a level 1 desysop, bringing it to the required three in favor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Stifle: I completely disagree that someone who uses racist slurs and other clear attacks against other users should be a sysop. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @NebY: He used the administrative toolkit through a block. You're correct that it was one incident, and to my knowledge there is no pattern of similar misuse. That said, his comments were so completely out of line and his responses to questioning about them equally so, that I would have unquestionably supported a level II desysop had the misuse of tools not also been a factor. With adequate explanation and a clear statement that it wouldn't happen again, I might have been willing to excuse the misuse of tools, but with the comments he has made and with his statements that he does not wish to regain the sysop userright, restoring the tools is the wrong move. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
        • @NebY: Also, to clarify: Malik Shabazz performed the requested revision deletion before the block. The misuse of tools occurred when, while blocked, he removed revision-deletion from an insult he'd made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I also agree to the desysop. Compromised or not, this is absolutely not acceptable behavior for an administrator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @DD2K: Desysops done in this manner are a temporary measure to prevent an immediate problem. They are open to review later, and if Malik should so request, we will of course review whether the tools should be restored. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Accept to examine the entire situation. There's clearly more to this situation than this particular incident. If the ARBPIA area remains toxic despite what's already been done there, we need to revisit that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The desysop has been done, but per procedure this is temporary until the entire committee can review the matter. To make the timeline clear, and explain why at least I thought this had to be done by the level 1 process, was the timeline showing tools were used through the block. Courcelles (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agreed also, but quite specifically pending some sort of explanation. I need more information to say whether we will need a case. DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept: this isn't really a Level I situation. Level I was intended for situations where a (compromised or otherwise) admin account goes on the rampage inflicting damage on the encyclopedia's infrastructure. Level II is more appropriate to the circumstances here: a temporary desysop pending investigation. Given Malik Shabazz's seemingly exemplary record a public case is probably the best way forward. It may also be a good time to review the Level I/Level II procedures, to see whether a better system can't be put together.  Roger Davies talk 06:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline - block of both parties was necessary for personal attacks. Temporary tool removal was also necessary as a preventative measure, given they were used while blocked and still engaged in the dispute. Full case is not necessary as I don't see this as a pattern of behaviour - it seems like a one-off angry reaction. Once we're confident the disruption has ceased I would support return of the tools per "Return of Permissions." On a separate issue, suggest AN or ANI consider whether this reaction is a consequence of ongoing harassment as suggested above. Should that be unproductive, would consider a case request on this subject. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept I don't think this is level I, it was clearly very far out of line but he didn't exactly go on a rampage deleting key articles or performing pagesplit vandalism. There was some background which is important to take into account in this case which hasn't really been exanined, and we should aim to be transparent as much as possible. Hence I am voting to accept this case. This may not have been a pattern of misbehavior, but it should nonetheless be examined. NativeForeigner Talk 07:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. I was asleep when all this happened, but I would have supported the temporary desysopping had I been aware at the time and endorse my colleagues actions. This is solely on the grounds of using admin tools while blocked. Given that a level 1 desysopping has happened there needs to be a review of the whole situation to determine whether Mike should have his tools restored and whether any action needs to be taken against other parties. A public case is the best way to have this review I believe. Note that I am recused with respect to KTC and will not be passing comment on their actions. Thryduulf (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • To those who have said that Mike's 8 years of good, level-headed service as an admin mean that it was obvious he was not going to go on a rampage, I disagree. This act was so clearly out of character that I do not believe his past behaviour to be a good predictor of his actions when clearly very emotional (and he certainly had good reason to be), we will never be able to know what actions this emergency desysopping did or did not prevent from happening, but in my opinion it is better to be over cautious in these matters. One principle that I think needs to be stressed in the light of Mike's statement here is that two wrongs do not make a right - racist abuse is never acceptable, but being the subject of racist abuse does not make it OK for you to racially abuse somebody else, ever. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept Pretty much per Thryduulf. This all went down while I too was asleep, so I'm just getting up to speed on it this morning; on the face of it, though, there are several aspects to this case which may bear examination beyond the desysop. Yunshui  09:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Striking, since I much prefer the proposal below. Yunshui  09:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

*Accept per Roger and NativeForeigner. Doug Weller (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Striking my accept at the moment as I agree that we should restore the tools and focus on the I-P topic problems.
  • Decline per Euryalus. Absolutely echo Floq's comments. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Would there be any support for a)restoring the tools and basically saying "bad evening, let's move on, don't do it again if you ever find yourself blocked again", and b) opening a case to investigate what can be done to make the I-P topic area less toxic? To focus on the general maelstrom rather than one evening's drama? Courcelles (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that things have settled down, I would support that. Use of tools while blocked is a bright line, but I don't think one incident warrants a permanent desysop. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I would be good with that. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Support restoring his tools, and agree with Courcelles that editing in this area is toxic and we need to see what we can do about it. Doug Weller (talk) 08:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I strongly support this, and would much prefer it over a case focussed on Malik's actions. Yunshui  09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Had Malik not resigned his administrative permissions (per his statement), this is how I would have voted (it was the vote I typed before seeing the resignation and new motion): I sympathise with the position that we need to support administrators who break under the pressure of working in these topics, and have personally proposed committee decisions that eschew the "torch and pitchforks" reaction to similar situations. Nevertheless, in the present case I do not consider the conduct exhibited to be so easily excusable. Accept. AGK [•] 21:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment: I am currently working on framing the case in a logical way so it doesn't turn into a free-for-all mud throwing match. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Malik Shabazz

The committee resolves that: :1. Malik Shabazz may be resysopped by a request to the Bureaucrats if he intends to return to active editing and is reminded that use of the tools while blocked is prohibited. As far as the committee is concerned this draws a line under the recent unfortunate events concerning this administrator.

1. The case is accepted with the aim of reviewing and if necessary modifying by motion existing sanction provisions in the prior Palestine-Israel articles case.
For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Support:
  1. Doug Weller (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  2.  Roger Davies talk 10:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  3. Ideally I would prefer not to return the tools until there is a clear communication from Malik Shabazz indicating that he's not going to do this again, but I'm more interested in getting a modified case underway. Thus, tentative support from me. Yunshui  11:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  5. Yes, though I'd note that should Malik decide to return, I'd still be happy to discuss reversing the tool removal. Level 1 removals are not intended as a final action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  6. Moving to support now that point 1 has been struck. I absolutely do not support restoring the tools. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  7. I support the opening of a case to look at the Palestine-Israel topic area, but not in Mike's name. Should Mike decide to unretire, I would like an examination of his conduct by the Committee before extensive editing and would actively oppose restoring administrative tools ahead of such. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  8. Distant second choice to original motion. This should have been an alt rather than a strikeout. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  9. As with courcelles. Totally gutted the point of the motion. Part of me wants to just try to pass a motion with a resysop as I firmly believe it's the right thing to do, but I'm not sure how the vote would turn out. While his behavior was out of line I really think the level I was premature and rather out of process (given how it's defined). What he did was certainly blockable, and to some degree I think he still ought to be blocked, but the sysop component bothers me more, given how it was performed. NativeForeigner Talk 06:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    FWIW I would oppose any resysop motion per my comments above and below. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  10. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  11. AGK [•] 21:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  12. LFaraone 21:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. I support a case as described in point 2 but do not feel that opening that case should necessarily be the end of the line for this one. I am unwilling to return the tools to Mike without either and RFA or I've seen evidence that he has calmed down and accepts that, no matter the provocation and no matter how wrong the other party's actions were, neither his use of racist epithets no his use of tools while blocked were justified or acceptable. I'm not seeking grovelling or retribution or anything of that nature, just evidence of acceptance and understanding. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Moving to support now that point 1 has been struck. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    I also strongly endorse Panyd's comments, and they are a part of the reason I've moved this from a comment to an oppose. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    What? Malik Shabazz misused his administrative tools to the extent that it required a level 1 desysop, and egregiously violated the civility policy with insults and racist comments. I understand that this response was not unprovoked, but why on earth are we proposing reinstating the tools with no communication from him that he wishes this to happen, or that this behavior won't continue? This very much flies in the face of the idea that everyone, regardless of tenure or privileges on the site, is expected to follow the civility policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Moving to support now that point 1 was removed from the motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  2. The immediate problem has been dealt with,and I see no possibility we well be able to do anything useful about PIA. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Abstain:
Comments:


Comment by Arbitrators:
Tweaking this per User:Ivanvector's post above. Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
And, sigh, again per Malik Shabazz's statement, which was posted since this motion, that he has retired. Thus point 1 of the motion is moot and point 2, focussing the aim of the case on the Palestine-Israel articles case is kept. Doug Weller (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

Principles

Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources available, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 9 to 1 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

5) Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is incompatible with the goals of this project.

Passed 9 to 2 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

6) The general rule is one editor, one account, though there are several legitimate uses of an alternate account. The creation or use of an additional account to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited. Sockpuppet accounts that are not publicly disclosed are not to be used in discussions internal to the project.

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

7) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing and edit-warring may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

At wit's end

8) In cases where all reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia.

Passed 10 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. This area has been the subject of two previous arbitration cases, the Palestine-Israel articles case and the West Bank - Judea and Samaria case.

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Background

2) In the Palestine-Israel articles case, the topic area was placed under an early form of Discretionary Sanctions. Those sanctions were superseded by a 2011 motion that placed "all Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, [..] under discretionary sanctions". While these sanctions are routinely used (log), they have been ineffective in controlling the disruption (Ivanvector's Evidence).

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry (finding of fact)

3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. (Kingsindian's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

One Revert Rule

4) The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. (Huldra's Evidence)

Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

General Prohibition

Superseded versions

2) All anonymous IP editors and accounts with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of Pending Changes, and appropriate edit filters.

2) All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

2) All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.

The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:

  1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
Passed 7 to 3 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 14:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Amended by motion at 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} can be added to the talk page of affected pages, and {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} can be added as an editnotice to affected pages.

Sanctions available

3)

Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in the original Palestine-Israel case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;

(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;

(iv) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;

(v) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
Passed 11 to 0 at 15:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

Per the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications
Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove 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" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Per the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Amendments

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (March 2016)

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is replaced with, "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition may be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters."

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 14:01, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.3) (December 2016)

Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
  1. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
  2. Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
Passed 7 to 0 by motion at 04:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modified

The consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:

Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit the provisions of this motion. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 00:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.