Malik Shabbaz

[CrowsNest]

Love it.

Oppose. Malik needs to drastically moderate his tone, but he is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia, and is one of the few competent editors in an extremely toxic topic. The community needs to take a hard look at this broader pattern of interactions; Malik has received appropriate sanction, but many of those responsible for provoking him and/or engaging in battleground behavior in the related conflicts have not. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

"Appropriate sanctions" is it?

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

Lying bastards.

[CrowsNest]

what I'm basically seeing from the oppose votes is that they are willing to overlook things because he's Malik, and I think that's wrong. It might have been correct, to an extent, the first or second or third time, but after a certain point in time civility needs to be enforced. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's be clear, if you're the sort of Administrator who let's the sort of thing Malik has been saying slide even once, then you're the sort of person who would let it slide forever.

[CrowsNest]

Pathetic.

The consensus here is clearly against a community-impose indef block. That said, it's clear that the community feels that Malek Shabazz's conduct has exceeded the limitations of reasonable collegial interpersonal community conduct, and Malek has already been blocked accordingly for continued personal attacks. Thus, I am closing this thread with no further action, with the specific caveat that Malek is on a final warning basis for personal attacks. Further personal attacks or aspersions should be met with the usual increasing discretionary block. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This must be his tentth "final warning" for personal attacks, certainly his second this week!

What kind of brain tumor do you need to have to think this asshole gives a damn about warnings?

[CrowsNest]

Here's the problem right here.....

User talk: Jezzy-lam
"That doesn't make you seem like a reasonable human being" - What way is that to speak to an editor here? That's a personal attack and I think you should redact it. And as for "which is precisely the reason you were blocked"? If "not being a reasonable human being" was your rationale for blocking, you should be ashamed of it and should immediately unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No, thinking again, I've redacted it to try to minimize the damage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but to be clear, I was doing nothing but being frank and honest with them. I was not trying to be mean. They're CIR blocked for a number of reasons, which, in fact, do boil down to "not being a reasonable human being", and the unblock request is clearly symptomatic of the problem. Pointing this out to them may have been blunt, but there was certainly no malice involved. Yes, if I were in a content dispute on a talk page, obviously it would be a personal attack to call someone an unreasonable human being, but when a user is blocked for bizarre, unhinged, unreasonable conduct, I don't think there's anything wrong with calling a spade a spade. I get that you're trying to "minimize damage", but I think that being direct and blunt is the only possible way we'll ever get through to this user. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, even though I disagree with your intervention here I can respect your view as a colleague. I've reworded my sentiments in a more appropriate way, focusing on the user's conduct rather than the user as a person. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. The thing is this is just a kid (who I think is well-meaning but just not very competent), and my fear was that he could be quite badly effected by being told something bad about himself as a person by someone in authority. Anyway, the new wording is good, as is the apology - and they've accepted it well. Good result, thanks again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Would it kill Wikipedia to have the person judging the fate of Malik actually understand what a personal attack is and why they are (theoretically at least) considered severe misconduct?

Not only should Malik be indef blocked right now, prevented from editing unless or until he takes responsibility for his actions and promises not to repeat them, all the freaks who downplayed what he does as mere incivility (as if you can't even be blocked for repeated severe and unapologetic instances of that!) blocked as well.

Culllen is a perfect example. "One of their best" Administrators, too corrupt and dishonest to even admit that calling people corrupt and dishonest and accusing a German Administrator of persecuting the poor little Jew is a little bit more than "combative".

"Get the fuck off this article" is combative. For psychoboy, it is merely the appetizer.

[CrowsNest]

THE FREAK HAS RETIRED.

Deleted his user page, blanked his talk, had 69 talk page archives deleted, unsubscribed from the SignPost and the TheWikiWizard. Has done nothing else. Nothing.

He literally sat there and watched the timer on his 72 hour block run out, then did this.

Wikipedians are now gathering on his talk page to say shit, this scumbag being the first.....

I understand your desire to step away from a while, but I hope that you will return when the time is right for you. Thank you for all of your excellent contributions over the years. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You understand do you? DO YOU FUCK. I've watched this freak for a long time, ever since Drmies first tried to save his skin with a bit of creative corruption (Have A Nice Day Doctor btw), and I guarantee he holds Cullen in just as much contempt as Sandstein. The guy has only ever had POISON for people who do not let him say or do whatever he wants.

This is why he has finally Section Eighted. If he was the person his enablers and defenders claimed he was, he would not have done this, would he? As always, he does the thing that is only explained by accepting this is a guy who can get six blocks for personal attacks, umpteen final warnings, and still comes out swinging at the EVIL RACIST ANTI-SEMITIC CONSPIRACY keeping him down.

The guy who does this, is the guy who GETS REALLY REALLY MAD at the realisation anyone in the Wikipedia community could ever DARE even propose he be indefinitely blocked, or rather BE FURIOUS that his friends like Drmies didn't immediately destroy them. Drmies was strangely nowhere to be seen in the final act, but that is the measure of the man, he can't even stand by his friends to the final conclusion of the slide into insanity they set them on the path of.

Not too long ago, Drmies wanted this guy to be an Administrator again, no questions asked. NEVER let ANYONE forget that BLATANT example of how much absolute contempt he has for everything that is supposedly a bedrock principle of Wikipedia. Rule 1 - Administrators can't be psychotics.

It doesn't bear thinking about, the things he might have tried to do, had he still been an Administrator. I think that was probably the last truly rational and selfless thing he ever did, to realize that whatever other people thought, he knew he was unfit to be an Administrator, so never did take Drmies up on his offer. It's speculation of course, the reason could have been entirely selfish. Explaining himself never was a strong suit of Malik's. Another example of the dysfunctional nature of the Wikipedia Administrator selection process.

There is an outside chance someone here is trying to pull a fast one and let this guy WP:CLEANSTART. Good luck with that. The wires that came loose in this guy's head, they don't get fixed with a new identity. He clearly can't stop being who he is now, not with so many people lining up to excuse him and blame it on the bogeyman.

HTD.

[CrowsNest]

Since a simple apology for the original sin against him won't be forthcoming, and that would, I hazard, be the only persuasive thing that might make him reconsider, the only helpful thing here would be a collective effort to write an historical essay summarizing as stringently and neutrally as possible how this punitive domino effect began, with a sockpuppet's harassment. And once sandboxed out, leave it on this abandoned page just to set the record straight, vindicate our lost editor's honour, and enable those who wonder what it was all about catch the drift in an overview. MS certainly deserves such a pittance of commemorative justice, and as a practice I don't see why it wouldn't turn out set a useful precedent for writing up cases in wikispace where bad administrative judgment can be shown to have catastrophic effects. It might teach that body to listen to the community, rather than rule it. Nishidani (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

And the reason anyone would believe this would really be a neutral presentation the facts is what exactly? Brain cancer?

What's the neutral way to explain how a Jew can call a German a "Good German" in the context of supposedly persecuting said Jew, and not be considered a racist? Quite an inconvenient fact, when the supposed narrative is he has been the victim of racism, not the perpetrator. What's the neutral way of presenting this argument that he is only a really nasty prick because he has been harassed? Would it be to include the obvious inference that the "Good German" is the one making anonymous attacks on pretty boy? Or that he is just the kind of guy who reacts to harassment by lashing out at anyone in authority, like a fucking mental case? Wikipedia is not therapy, remember?

You're a fucking idiot if you think writing some weepy essay that is up to your same usual standards of neutrality is going to fix anything. Your boy is sitting his pants with bread sticks up his nose obsessing about the lizard people now precisely because he had friends like you.

Even now, you're pretending like this bullshit....

sockpuppetting dickhead racist jagged his sensitivities as an Afro-American by calling him a 'boy'

.....stands up to scrutiny.

It was having friends like you that sent this guy to the fruit farm. And if he ever returns, if he still has the same friends saying the same shit, the outcome will be the same.

[CrowsNest]

Typical.

I guess I missed all this. I'm reminded of User:MastCell#The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia, #2. You've accomplished more than your fair share. Hope you come back in a while; understand if you don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ignorance is infinite, while patience is not. Ultimately, you will lose patience with the unchecked flow of ignorance, at which point you'll be blocked for incivility. The goal is to accomplish as much as possible before that inevitability comes to pass.

Don't let the fact he isn't actually blocked, he left voluntarily, get in the way of a good story.

Poor Malik. They are lamenting his departure by the literal TENS. Minus three.

In terms of perceived value to the project, what does the size of that pretty pitiful pity party make Jytdog?

[Abd]

Malik Shabbaz clearly did not take a serious warning well (a 72 hour block is that).
Here are all the deletions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ype=delete

I would not allow that, it's way too much work (and setting up more work possibly later) to be done without discussion. I would have told Malik to blank the pages with a prod, perhaps, allowing time for discussion if anyone cared. User request can be a speedy deletion request. Since the talk page is not deleted, all that archived content is available there, and talk page archives make research a little easier, so deleting them (or not archiving the talk page at all) is a common practice of abusive users.

If I were his enemy, I would go through and archive.is each talk page removal. I'm not his enemy and have some level of sympathy for him, and I frankly blame the community for not adequately restraining him, for letting him run wild without supervision. The community creates abusive users, again and again. It should be much more common that admins are blocked for civility violations, at least short-blocked if they ignore warnings. And they do. I remember when Jimbo blocked Bishonen for a blatant civility violation. I had some level of respect for Bish before that. She missed an incredible opportunity: she could have thanked him for standing for civility. I did that with one of my blocks on Wikiversity! (Basically, I made a mistake!) Instead, huge fuss and Jimbo more or less walked away from actively standing for adherence to policy. No effing backbone, that fellow, I'm afraid. Can't offend our Valuable Users, can we?

Three fucking hours

Those effing valuable users, unrestrained, have driven off an uncountable number of users that would have enhanced the project.

[CrowsNest]

Nobody asks Jimmy what he thinks of the Wikipedia Administration's clear choice to enable freaks like Malik, people who have clearly absolutely fucking lost their marbles and cannot in any conceivable way still be considered to be a Wikipedian.

They don't ask because they know what his response would be, and frankly, they don't care. The community has their own Jimmy's now, starting with the original imposter, Bishonen.

I don't think Jimmy even cares either. If I was able to reap all the benefits of being known as the founder of Wikipedia, while never having to explain why these turds do what they do in the name of Wikipedia governance, I'd take that job in a heartbeat.

[CrowsNest]

Shameless.....

Take care Malik. I am truly sorry for what you had thrown at you in this place. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Any sympathy for the victims of his bile? No?

I didn't think so.

Openly and shamelessly biased Administrators like Drmies, people who made it all the way to the top, these are the people who need to be ratted out to Trust and Safety. These are the people who have ensured Wikipedia is not a safe space for people who publicly report their Vested Contributors. These are the people who directly interfere, using their own user rights and their undeserved positions of trust, to negate any and all attempts to ensure minimum standards are upheld. Standards like, no dude, you crazy fuck, you don't get to do whatever you want just because you think you're justified, and you will face consequences if you try.

Black Jews can be vile bigoted racists too. As well as ordinary everyday POV pushers.

During his term at the top table, something he later admitted was one of the only reasons he stood for election to ArbCom, he wanted Malik to be given his Administrator rights back, no questions asked, and made sure the necessary paperwork was filled out to let it happen. That it did not, is only because Malik had a moment of clarity and realized he is totally unfit.