Case clerk: L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk) & Doug Weller ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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)
Case amended by WP:ARBPIA4 on 06:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
A case of possible administrator abuse; DR unnecessary.
(for the record - Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC))
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 (
talk •
edits) 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 ( talk • edits) 01:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
This is a copy of the e-mail message I sent ArbCom last night. "Under a cloud" my ass.
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)
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)
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)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
*Accept per Roger and NativeForeigner.
Doug Weller (
talk) 15:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
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 Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.
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.
3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. ( Kingsindian's Evidence)
4) The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. ( Huldra's Evidence)
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.
These remedies have been vacated. For the current set of remedies applicable in this topic area, please see the
Palestine-Israel articles 4 case.
| ||
---|---|---|
General Prohibition
2)
Sanctions available3) 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.
|
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
These amendments have been superseded. For the current set of remedies applicable in this topic area, please see the
Palestine-Israel articles 4 case.
|
---|
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."
Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.3) (December 2016)Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modifiedThe consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
|
1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):
Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.
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.
Case clerk: L235 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero ( Talk) & Seraphimblade ( Talk) & Doug Weller ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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)
Case amended by WP:ARBPIA4 on 06:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
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.
A case of possible administrator abuse; DR unnecessary.
(for the record - Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC))
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 (
talk •
edits) 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 ( talk • edits) 01:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
This is a copy of the e-mail message I sent ArbCom last night. "Under a cloud" my ass.
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)
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)
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)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
*Accept per Roger and NativeForeigner.
Doug Weller (
talk) 15:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
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 Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Palestine-Israel articles case.
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.
3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
3) The Palestine-Israel topic area has been continuously plagued by sockpuppetry. ( Kingsindian's Evidence)
4) The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. ( Huldra's Evidence)
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.
These remedies have been vacated. For the current set of remedies applicable in this topic area, please see the
Palestine-Israel articles 4 case.
| ||
---|---|---|
General Prohibition
2)
Sanctions available3) 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.
|
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
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:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
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:
|
These amendments have been superseded. For the current set of remedies applicable in this topic area, please see the
Palestine-Israel articles 4 case.
|
---|
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."
Motion: Palestine-Israel articles 3 (v0.3) (December 2016)Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
Motion: ARBPIA "consensus" provision modifiedThe consensus required restriction in the Palestine-Israel articles case is modified to read as follows:
|
1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):
Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.
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.