Malik Shabbaz

[CrowsNest]

What an absolute fucking psycho (genuine accurate personal attack right there).

Why does Sandstein act like he is corrupt and incompetent? Does anybody give a fuck, or will the only response be to block me for making an accurate personal attack? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

[CrowsNest]

Pyschoboy seems to be learning. Well, not enough to avoid yet another block, nor to avoid an extension of it, but by his prior standards, his reactions to it have been relatively muted. He's still gone well beyond what would get a novice user blocked indefinitely, even beyond what most of the well known trolls of Wikipedia are known to be capable of without serious consequences, and he still only has to sit on the naughty step for a week, but hey, that's hardly news, they don't call them Vested Contributors for nothing.

Surprisingly, nobody rode to his rescue this time. Nor has anyone gone after Sandstein. I wonder, did they just not notice he had been blocked? Seems just as likely as them finally realising he really does have a screw loose, he really is totally incompatible with Wikipedia, and so if they continue to defend him, he will just drag them down with him.

I predict 2019 will be his last year on Wikipedia, and it will most likely end in a drama fireball. I also predict Drmies will face no consequences for claiming, well beyond the point it was an obvious case of blind loyalty, that Malik is the real victim, and he could and should have been able to retain his Administrator rights, "no questions asked". Drmies narrowly failed in his bid for a second term to ArbCom not long after that episode, that is now utterly blind the entire Wikipedia community is to the real cancer among them.

To enforce an arbitration decision and for casting aspersions and misusing Wikipedia as a battleground, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions

Sandstein 07:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I have increased the block duration to one week because you evaded the block by editing with your alternate account User:MShabazz to repeat your disruption. If you disagree with the block, you may appeal it, but until you have successfully done so, you may not evade the block. Sandstein 09:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing to evade the block, as e.g. through your edits as User:2600:1:910C:F046:51A4:FDA0:BCC1:3608. This will only lead to increased sanctions. Sandstein 09:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Your disruptive contribution at WP:AE

I have reverted your most recent comment at WP:AE because it was disruptive. You made broad allegation of misconduct ("tag-teaming") against identifiable editors without evidence, in violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, and you misused AE, which is a board dedicated to repressing disruptive conduct, to further conflict among editors along ideological lines, in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am blocking you for 48 hours. If you persist in this kind of conduct, I intend to impose a longer block or topic ban. Sandstein 07:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

What's the matter, Sandstein? Did I strike a little too close for comfort? What kind of dirt does Icewhiz have on you? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

By the way, if it's so easy to identify the group of editors who tag-team, why the fuck don't Wikipedia's administrators do something about their conduct? Are you all lily-livered cowards who are afraid of your shadows? Does not one of you have a spine? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 08:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, if you believe that you have evidence that there are groups of editors who are "tag-teaming" in a way that disrupts Wikipedia and violates accepted standards of conduct, then I am interested in taking action against them. But in order to be able to do so, I need a well put-together request at WP:AE or another appropriate forum that establishes this misconduct in an easy-to-understand, concise manner with diffs as evidence. Insults and aspersions will not help, but only hurt your case. Sandstein 09:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That's a bald-faced lie, Sandstein, and you know it. You would dismiss it in a heartbeat as a content dispute that's inappropriate for AE. And you're a bloody liar if you say otherwise. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I would in fact dismiss it if it is just a content dispute. If there are several people who disagree with you on a content issue, they are more likely to prevail. This is not "tag-teaming", but it's how Wikipedia works. But if there is concrete evidence of violations of conduct policy in a DS topic area - for instance, sockpuppetry (ahem), or cooperating to game 1RR / 3RR restrictions, or what have you, I will consider taking action. I can't promise that I will - there are situations that are just too complicated or time-consuming for a single admin to get a hold on, because they involve longterm patterns of conduct, and therefore would need a full arbitration case. But I'll approach it with an open mind. Sandstein 09:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

[CrowsNest]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ik_Shabazz

I don't think there *is* any socking. The range that covers both IPs has rangeblocked by Yamla for cross-wiki harassment (and very possibly long-term abuse as well). I doubt very much if the IP behind that is Malik Shabazz - do you? ..... Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Since Malik has a past history of IP socking to evade sanctions, is a massively abusive person, and has severe self-control issues, I would not be taking that bet, thank you very much.

[CrowsNest]

Malik has so obviously been caught cheating by using an IP to avoid 3RR. His attempted defences are beyond comical. He claims the IPs don't geolocate to his location. When told that they do, he blames the fact someone else said they didn't. Why would he take them at their word? He claims the language is different, he spells out numbers, they wrote it as 10s. Zero rebuttal of the fact that is the only difference between the IPs long phrasing of the issue that seems to match his account. He claims he has never edited while logged out. When that is shown to be a lie, he clarified he has never edited while logged out except when he was "retired". Which is, of course, still against the rules, when the reasons he was doing so was to edit war and make personal attacks. The same apparent purpose of this IP sock.

So....much.....bullshit.

Why doesn't he just claim he is being joe jobbed? That's the first thought that would have occurred to anyone this experienced who genuinely was being set up. The alarm bells would be ringing, the danger clear and obvious. He doesn't because he knows he's not being set up, and the particular circumstances here mean if he is, it can only be PackMecEng who is doing it, and only as part of a month long elaborate scheme. You can't rule it out, but you know for damn sure (if your name is not Drmies) what the more likely explanation is.

[CrowsNest]

Phew, for a second there I thought Drmies had finally cut ties with his temperamentally challenged buddy......but nope.

There's a big difference between anger and harassment. I hope the admins here will not take action based on this unsubstantiated comment. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that he does not explain why a user with Malik's record cannot be blocked for simply being angry, when it manifests as prohibited conduct.

No advice there either for what his Admin colleagues should do about the pretty well substantiated allegations of sock puppetry. I'm sure a CheckUser could definitively say if the IP edits were not made from a device used by Malik to edit Wikipedia, which would assist Administrators in deciding what action to take. Drmies is a CheckUser...........

As usual with Drmies, you're often better off if he doesn't turn up and speak in your defence. For threats and even blocks, sure, he can be useful.

As is also usual, when it comes to the unstable freak that is Malik, showing weakness and indecisiveness in how you react to his tempestuous side, merely brings on even worse behaviour......

Statement by Malik Shabazz
I will state, once again, that since Icewhiz started spreading his unique fragrance in the topic area of Polish-Jewish history and relations, I have tried to avoid it like the plague. He has made that topic area worse to edit than articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict ever were. He is a cancer on Wikipedia. Administrators can treat the topics he edits symptom by symptom, or they can excise the cancer. Their choice. Unfortunately, we all know which they're going to choose. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've bolded the bit that by rights, should be triggering an indefinite block even as a first offence, never mind history, but of course the whole damn thing is entirely unacceptable.

It was removed by El_C......
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =899594227

personal attacks will not be tolerated — you will not be warned again about this

.....which is all rather pointless, given he has been warned for NPA a million times, indeed he has had more than one statement removed from AE before, and it doesn't make a blind bit of difference.

As is also normal, Malik did not take that lying down.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =899595786

[CrowsNest]

I don't know why anyone is even accepting the idea Drmies is an unbiased observer when it comes to Malik anymore. But bless him if he isn't still trying to pretend he is.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =899590144

You would not believe this guy is meant to be a Person of Letters, both in real life and on Wikipedia. The liberty taking is astonishing.

I think this is a pretty uncivil remark.

Good. Absent any evidence, it is. And the reason you are not acknowledging Malik is guilty of the same, and indeed was the first to start suggesting the people in this dispute are stoopid without evidence ( "Is your reading comprehension always this bad?" ), is what exactly?

Calling into question the basic competence of a longtime editor (and administrator) is just a nice way of making a personal attack

Um, he's no longer an Administrator, and the reason he has no chance of ever being one again is because he lacks the competence required for that role, what with him being unstable and everything. Just slipped your mind, did it? Or was it a deliberate attempt to deceive? Such an error certainly brings new light as to your competence.

the point Malik Shabazz was making there is valid ("notability" of an event is established by its having an article, but that it should be mentioned in that article does not logically follow).

It's a valid standalone point, but it loses its validity when the people he is saying it to are obviously not so incompetent they do not understand it, and their repeated mentions of "notability" are in fact meant as direct rebuttals against the UNDUE claims. It shows Malik is the incompetent one here by refusing to acknowledge this, and continues to argue his opponents are still just confused (read:stupid). They are literally making arguments that speak to the issue, both due to the nature of the news coverage and the evidence it was not a isolated incident. And yet Malik simply keeps making rebuttals of a personal nature (you are still being stoopid) rather than a factual nature (your analysis is incorrect, because.....). Just about the only correct thing Malik did here was solicit outside opinions, and it speaks directly to his total incompetence that this has only been done after he has both edit warred and engaged in highly personalized abuse, and he has opened the RfC in an entirely prejudicial manner.

The earlier use of "champ" on that same talk page is also highly uncollegial.

No doubt. As was the statement ( "Is your reading comprehension always this bad?" ) which prompted it. Any reason you failed to give the necessary context there? A competence issue on your part, or something worse?

But here's the thing: it's a heated debate, and as long as it's not a gutter fight causing wider disruption I don't see why we should step in on either side.

Hmmm. This must be another competence issue. Policy is pretty clear - people don't get a free pass on incicvility if it is only a two way affair localised to a single debate. The inherently disruptive nature of such things, which policy seeks to avoid, is evident from that very debate. People like Malik, with established records of blocks for doing the sort of thing he does when this sort of "heated debate" gets out of hand, are certainly not meant to be left alone until it reaches its inevitable flashpoint. This was a particularly bizarre comment to make given it comes underneath concurrent evidence that Malik is absolutely the kind of editor who is a source of ongoing disruption across a wide and contentious topic area, and therefore any indication he is winding up to deliver more serious personal attacks in this dispute, should be shut down hard.

PackMecEng, I hope you understand why I think throwing "CIR" into the mix is a low blow.

I think everyone does. It's an unsubtle attempt to allege Malik is being baited. Which is entirely undercut by the evidence, which shows very clearly, at least in that isolated incident z who was the first to reach into the gutter.

Now, I'm all for investigating the whole dispute to establish who might be the worst offender in terms of who failed to follow the flow chart first and whose conduct has been so persistently below the required standards of a mere editor, never mind any sense they are still rightly considered Administrator material, but I think that has already been done by one of your Admin colleagues........

I've always respected Malik. But it's hard for me to look at the page history, the reversions, the edit summaries, and the comments on the talk page (on an already-contentious topic) and not classify it as anything short of bullying that any normal editor would be blocked for. Then when I see subsequent edit warring and personal attacks while there is an AN/I thread open, that just seems entirely uncaring and unapologetic. Of course we do not want to have to choose between a valuable editor and our behavioral policies and guidelines. But when they've been desysopped, have a block log a mile long, and show no signs of improvement, and can't even bring themselves to stop during the AN/I thread, that just shows me that they've given up completely and that there's no point in doling out more and more rope. It can't go on forever, and it never does. Malik's gotten two "final warnings" for behavior that happened after this AN/I thread. I think that's the best we'll do here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

[CrowsNest]

Bad parenting.....

https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/vie ... =19&t=1251

.....has to be exposed.

[CrowsNest]

Freako got get another block for personal attacks, his seventh since January 2017.

72 hours.

What. A. Joke.

[CrowsNest]

Indef block proposed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... _Indef_Ban

The facts are clear, the policy based merits of forcing Malik to have a much needed road to Damascus moment ( ) is obvious. Previous multiple "final" warnings and six short duration blocks for personal attacks since January 2017 have been entirely ineffectual. The seventh was applied after he ignored yet another final warning.

The situation is reaching Eric Corbett levels of ridiculousness, with his enablers genuine trying to argue there are ways to look at his behaviour that do not add up to a deliberate desire to approach any dispute in the exact opposite way policy advises. They are of course also echoing the claims of harassment etc, without of course finding the courage or strength of character to properly act on them the way policy advises.

The underlying causes are surprisingly similar to Eric too. A vested contributor with a temper issue, an ever growing persecution complex, an epic level of arrogance coupled with an anti-establishment mindset that totally contrasts with much of the establishment's apparent willingness to bend over backwards to say and do anything, no matter how outrageous, to excuse or defend an utterly immoral piece of shit.

Not only are these warnings and blocks not changing Malik's approach to Wikipedia at all, he has taken to reacting to these perfectly valid and often incredibly lenient blocks with total contempt, issuing forth ridiculous accusations of incompetence, harassment or conspiracy on the part of his detractors and the Administrators attempting to modify his behaviour.

He can believe this all he wants, an indefinite block gives him the chance to put up or shut up. Alternatively, he can be indeffed but unblocked for the sole purpose of airing these accusations before ArbCom (a step that would surely result in a site ban, but hey, the principle of allowing someone to hang themselves, to use the Wikipedia term of art, is practically tradition in Wikipedia).

There is no reason to think a longer but time-limited block will succeed, since Malik has shown he is perfectly prepared to simply wait them out, once he's done all the other shit. He is clearly in it for the long game, so you can bet your life he would probably consider even an enforced three month holiday no big deal.

So get in quick before Drmies shuts it down and blocks the proposer for racism or anti-Semitism or just because he can.

[CrowsNest]

To all the morons seeking to give a free pass to Malik because he is supposedly the victim of harassment, would you stupid fucks kindly note a few things......

1. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says an editor's obligations under WP:NPA are void if they are a victim of harassment.

2. The only way such an allowance even makes sense (as mitigation, not justification), is if the attacks are directed at the person doing the harassment. As far as I know, nobody has yet been stupid enough to claim El_C or Sandstein or any of the other Administrators who have blocked him are the ones sending Malik poison pen letters (although I doubt anyone would blame them if they were, he's that much of an asshole)

3. The claim that Brad Dyer was racially abusing Malik by calling him "sonny boy" is a myth. The block arising from it was lifted because there was a perfectly reasonable explanation that took account of the fact Brad is British, "sonny boy" being a very common phrase in the UK, with zero (ZERO) racial connotations. It is a myth just as much as this idea Brad is a sock of NoCal. No block on that basis was a ever made, even though I gather blocking NoCal socks on sight is apparently Wikipedia policy. If you want to dispute it, go ask Brad about it. Oh no, wait, you can't, because Drmies later blocked him for reasons entirely urelated to to these bullshit myths. And if Drmies says he wasn't acting improperly to rid his friend of an inconvenient reminder of who he really is, if he was just doing what any other Administrator would do, well, gee, why would you disbelieve him?

It should be obvious by now, but for those of you with apparent difficulty understanding basic human pychology, Malik is most likely being harassed not simply because of who he is, but because he has found a rather effective way of avoiding any and all consequences for doing things that any other editor gets blocked in a hot second for. Shit, for apparently doing nothing more difficult than being born a double-minority, Malik is clearly getting away with stuff quite a few experienced (but presumably friendless white dudes) editors have been indef-blocked for, or worse for that matter.

People 'ain't dumb. This shit 'ain't hard to figure out. I'm all for affirmative action. But you're Doing It Wrong.

Here's a tip. You can protect Malik from harassment, and you can also stop him being an asshole. It is all within your power as Wikipedia editors. Indeed it is your duty under the very policies you claim too hold so dear. We can't make you be good people. We can tell you that if you're surprised at the consequences of being bad people, you need to get into the sea.