• 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)[reply]
• With three votes, I have asked at BN for this to be enacted. Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Comment I also support a level 1 desysop, bringing it to the required three in favor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
• 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 ^雲_水 09:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, since I much prefer the proposal below. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline pretty much per Euryalus. Salvio ^{Let’s talk about it!} 11:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“>Doug Weller (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. — Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would be good with that. — Amanda (aka DQ) 06:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I strongly support this, and would much prefer it over a case focussed on Malik’s actions. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted – L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1. Doug Weller (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^雲_水 11:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

   FWIW I would oppose any resysop motion per my comments above and below. Thryduulf (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10. — Amanda (aka DQ) 18:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 21:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. LFaraone 21:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Tweaking this per User:Ivanvector‘s post above. Doug Weller (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

1) For the sake of easy referencing, the following existing remedies are vacated (with the intention of replacing them elsewhere in this decision):

ARBPIA:

• Editors reminded
• Editors counseled
• Standard discretionary sanctions (for “All Arab-Israeli conflict-related pages”)
• General 1RR restriction

ARBPIA2:

• Area of conflict
• Lifting of restrictions
• Suspension of restrictions

ARBPIA3:

• General Prohibition (of users not “extended confirmed”)
• Sanctions available

Existing enforcement decisions relying upon these remedies are not vacated and will be appealable as if this remedy had not carried.

Passed 6 to 0 in the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 19:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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.