Malik Shabbaz

Editors, Admins and Bureaucrats Oh my!

Moderator: Abd

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Fri Aug 31, 2018 9:50 am

A longer block has been proposed, with evidence to justify it. It concludes with the pertinent conclusion...
There is a pattern of incivility and he just seems to be doubling down on his attacks on admins who enforce the sanctions. A longer block, atleast 1 month or 3 months is in order.
The reaction?
oppose - literally no reason for a proposal like this. Malik has a problem with a specific user, that problem should be discussed and worked it out, ideally between the two of them. Something that is not part of the solution is a third party going through a user talk page for reasons that escape me to report an attack on somebody else entirely. Sanstein is a grown up, if he feels attacked he can say so. But, again, ideally this is worked out with a discussion, not a rather absurd length of a block for a comment on a user talk page. nableezy - 19:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
"Literally no reason." :lol: the hilarious thing is, the only reason an asshole even dares say this, dares to claim things that have been shown to be untrue inches above his comment, with diffs, is because he knows he can get away with it. No blocks for misrepresentation in Wikipedia, much less wilful assholery, not even on the Administrator board. This prick is of course a close ally of Malik. You're shocked, I know.

Whatever the fuck this is......
Comment. I do not think we have such entity as a "community imposed block". If you want to propose a community ban or a community imposed topic ban, you should start the discussion accordingly. If you find Oshwah's action inappropriate you should go to WP:AN and ask uninvolved admin to review the block. But voting for a longer (or, for that matter, shorter) block does not make sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Asking for a longer block makes perfect sense, since the current one is for a single incident with no apparent regard for the user's long record of the same. Not to mention OSWAH SPECIFICALLY SAID OTHERS SHOULD LOOK INTO IT. The proposer looked into it. He's asking you pricks to do something. He asked for a longer block, not a topic ban, or a community ban. He said it in plain English. Dumbass.

Another so called Administrator....
Let's wait to see what happens in 3 days first. I'd like to extend more than a little grace to someone who wasn't shown any real grace back when he really needed it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
What the fuck does this even mean? Back when? I think people deserve to know why Malik is getting away with murder here. Admin accountability and all that.

Wikipedia's Administration clearly doesn't want to know about harassment of one of its own. And it certainly doesn't want to know about their policy of escalating blocks in the face of persistent misbehaviour which is not acknowledged, much less regretted.

They want to wait and see what Malik will do when his block expires. I have a suggestion. HAVE A LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE. Plenty there to show you there is absolve no reason to believe Malik's behaviour will change this time around.

They even do nothing when the person subject to gross abuse, is told by the abuser's friend he is supposed to work it out one on one. As if he doesn't already know that would simply lead to more abuse. Malik doesn't simply have a problem with Sandstein, he would happily kill him, I am sure. He's a mental case.

Malik is a victim, Sandstein is an asshole? Welcome to bizarro-world.

Wikipedia is a joke.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Sep 01, 2018 3:04 am

Predictable.
This appears to have died a natural death, and there is obviously no support for an extended block of MS. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Black Kite not being known for his hard line on harassment or vicious toxic users. Quite the reverse in fact.

Should Administrators who have been previously admonished by the Arbitration Committee for "breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators", specifically because "Black Kite cast aspersions against, and made personal attacks on other users [involved in the stressful business of Arbitration Enfforcement]" even be allowed within a million miles of closing AN/I reports about the harassment of the principle admin in that venue? An admin who he is regular in disagreement with at that very venue.

I dare say if you looked, you'd find Black Kite expressing sentiments about Sandstein that are not too dissimilar to the ones expressed by his harasser, which the report was nominally trying to gain redress for. Nobody will look.

So, well done Wikipedia. Even the manner in which you brushed this under the carpet, you didn't fail to live down to expectations.

It's all recorded here now. It can and will be used against you. You can expect a call from our people. Every. Last. One. Of.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Sun Sep 02, 2018 7:57 am

Oswah wrote:We need to be a responsible group of editors; remember, our actions and words set the example for how editors are expected to handle issues and behave on Wikipedia.

06:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Do as I say, not as I do? Or did you really intend to imply what Floquenbeam did here in the face of evidence of clear and obvious harassment, as part of a long term pattern of recidivism, that is not in any way being prevented by short blocks, or the urgings that he least try not to be an asshole, said with love and support by his fucked up friends, merits absolutely no action? Literally nothing. Not even a message? Although I suppose the lack of a message indicates you are at least aware Malik ignores unwanted feedback at best, throws it in your face at worst.

Oswah said this during a completely different incident, so I'm guessing everybody on Wikipedia is going to just pretend like THEY DON'T EVEN SEE IT.

This mental case will get blocked again, it is only a matter of time. If there are people out there trying to make that happen quicker than it would normally, well, they're not the bad guys here. Not good guys either, but when the so called good guys fail to step up and enforce the law, action outside of the law has to be taken. Malik understands that, indeed he believes he is doing that. He just has a different interpretation of good and bad to most people. Being a Wikipedian tends to do that to people. Plus the fact he's clearly mental.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Sep 03, 2018 4:32 am

He has resumed editting, and that literally means what it says - he has not performed one single action yet that is not an article edit.

If he has any thoughts on the block, or what was said by the person who bravely suggested it should be extended, he is keeping them to himself.

If he has thanks for those who lied and misrepresented or were just biased and corrupt, so as to avoid him getting what policy expects he should (a very long block until he admits what he did and promises there will not be a repeat), then he is keeping them to himself, or has transmitted them privately.

After all this time, after so many other examples, I don't know why the Wikipedians are still so bad at spotting a psychopath in their midst. If they assume this is normal behaviour, if they assume this is how an ideal editor behaves, one who has no more trouble in their future, they are making a mistake.

Still, the fact the Wikipedia community is dysfunctional or that individual Wikipedians are by and large conflict averse cowardly morons, is not news.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:45 pm

User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Sat Nov 10, 2018 3:18 am

As brazen as you like.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =868111232

Presumably emboldened by this failure to act a mere four hours earlier....

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

While corrupt Administrators like Drmies and Black Kite are allowed to call themselves trusted users, Wikipedia will never be able to deal with people like this psychotic freak.

What happened to the idea that topic banned editors had to stay far far away from anything that remotely resembled the topic they are banned from? As a demonstration of good faith, as a way to show they might deserve only a warning when caught for the first time, never mind what must be the third attempt to test the limits.

Even psychotics seemingly benefit from the Wikipedia tradition of giving beneficial treatment to those who show the most zeal for scribbling in the sandpit.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:57 pm

On boy. Drmies' favourite Should Still Be Administrator and all round psycho has been at it again.....
Your edit summary
Hi Malik Shabazz. I hope you're having a fun and stress-free holiday season so far. I'm messaging you in regards to the edit summary you left with your edit here to Linda Sarsour. Look man, I know content disputes and the like can get frustrating and perhaps upsetting or infuriating - I've been there before myself and I understand... but you can't do that, man... You can't call another editor a "Nazi" like that... :-/

I'm not going to go off scolding you or lecturing you about civility and making personal attacks, since you're already familiar with these policies and doing so would just be making me "that scolding admin" and I don't wanna be that kind of person. Just keep those policies in mind, and please keep your edit summaries, comments, messages, whatever, respectful. It's only going to cause you more frustration and hardship when any "recipient" of such... "editorial comments" start to message you about it asking wtf, or reports you to a noticeboard like ANI, etc - Just do yourself and others a favor and just keep those policies in mind for me, okay? I appreciate it. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Oswah is a useless pussy. Why would anyone pay any attention to what he says about anything? This psycho won't, no special deductive powers needed to realise that, just read this thread.

AN/I report was shut down by Bbb23 again......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=874175221

For those keeping track, that's the second time Drmies' boyfriend has swooped in to save Drmies' favourite editor. He gonna get him some good lovin' tonight, no doubt. Black Kite on scene too, to further undermine the civility policy, his speciality, now joined in that game by Vanamode it seems. They know a block is merited here, they just choose not to place it. Bbb23 for sure knows a block is warranted. Corrupt fuck.

Which one of these Administrators is worse, do you think? Bbb23 is corrupt, but he is at least consistently corrupt. Black Kite is a piece of shit, but again, he isn't doing anything here that he doesn't do all the time. I think it's Oswah. To be such a pussy, to let yourself be so blatantly ignored, that's worse than being corrupt. It's just weak. It's an insult that he even pretends like he is there to uphold civility. His weakness is the reason it is being ignored by this pyscho.

Wikipediocracy randoms are all up in arms about this, as if they care. Black Kite is a member there, and so is Malik. If you're really so upset about it, then tell them to never post on that board again until they stop doing what they do, or at the very least, answer the pertinent questions so readers might understand why they are doing it. Or you can just keep being pussies, just like Oswah.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:50 am

Unsurprisingly, Poetlister, the Wikipedia apologist's apologist, has his tongue firmly planted right up Black Kite's ass.....apparently anyone who thinks Malik literally called his opponent a Nazi, is autistic.

Fuck off. You do not need to be autistic to see that what he did was not making a "rhetorical point". He was taking the opportunity that presented itself, in full knowledge there are plenty of Wikipedia Administrators prepared to deny what he is really all about.

He said it, and he meant it. It isn't an accident that he ignored the warning and the report. Anything he said in reply, would either be a lie, or a case of self-incrimination.

But Poetlister doesn't want to see the world that way. He wants to see the world as a place where Black Kite is not a piece of shit. Just another useful idiot helping Wikipedia be everything it can be.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:09 am

Beeblebrox has revealed on Wikipediocracy (we might as well call it Alternate AN/I now I guess?) he was the one who revision deleted the offending material.

By policy, these are the only relevant reasons he could possibly have had for removing it.....
Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little or no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value, but not mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations.

Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project. This includes allegations, harassment, grossly inappropriate threats or attacks
If he really believed that was what the content was, then given Malik's history (including prior ignored blocks), a block was obviously in order.

Despite claiming he doesn't agree with the corrupt fucks who decided not to block, he gives no reason why he didn't do so at the time, and he can only seemingly admit that he wouldn't block now because it would cause drama "and an unblock anyway".

This is a classic example of the sort of pathetic Administration that has killed Wikipedia's ability to enforce any policy, but especially those governing user interaction.

Either Beeblebrox ignored policy and just deleted it to protect Malik from drama (for their "poor idea"), or he deleted it because he sees it as meeting those criteria, but is too much of a coward to block them for it, then or now.

He also bizarrely seems to think it is relevant to say of the target that he "seems to be a magnet for this kind for crap for no apparent reason". I can't see any reason to say that, unless he wants people to think a block wasn't merited because they deserved it.

As usual, he is getting away with posting this garbage on Wikipedicoracy, as if it makes any sense at all.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Malik Shabbaz

Postby CrowsNest » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:57 pm

The psycho strikes again.....
Talk:BAMN
When you grow up, "Shabby" is willing to discuss. Until then, Dumbo, your unconstructive changes will continue to be reverted. For the same reasons as before. Which you seem to be too proud or too stupid to understand. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Who is the stupid person here, really? The novice editor, or the veteran and ex-Administrator?

Still, you can see why Drmies fights so hard to protect him, to shield him from any and all accountability, as if these episodes of absolutely unwarranted and totally disproportionate aggression are totally outside of his control. Drmies sees something in Malik that he has himself in spades, that peurile need to not just lower yourself to your attacker's level, but to go even lower, and then blame anyone and everyone else for your lack of maturity and good judgement.

Well, Malik, it must really suck to be you, because while you got busted from Administrator down to a regular editor for being such an immature powder keg of a whack-job, Drmies just continues to get away with it, all day, every day.

I wonder, is that why he tries so hard to help you out? Tries so hard to carry water for the poor put upon Malik, to paint you as the victim and everyone else as the problem. Right up to his ludicrous attempt to leverage his undeserved status as an Arbitrator to get you reinstated as an Administrator. Guilty conscience?

It will never end for you Malik. You and Uncle Drmies get the reactions you do, you find yourselves in the situations you do, precisely because of who you are. It is open to question whether Drmies is trying to keep you out of a box, or if his guilty conscience is just going to hasten you into one. You should feel honoured, the fact he even appears sorry for the clear disparity in what he still has, compared to what you ended up with, puts you in very rare company indeed.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wikipedians

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest