User talk:Malik Shabazz

My user page My talk page My contributions Articles of which I'm proud Awards I've been given WikiProjects to which I belong

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read this before you leave me a message.

Hello

To Mister Shabaz

Stick to the point I'm Fidel Azazi from Lebanon I tried to write a page about a Very promising singer a 14 year old Camelia Crisan i tried to write about her twice but both pages are deleted so please her two singles hits 70,000 views I provided references but please help me write one thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelove (talk • contribs) 20:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Affirmative action

Good edit of yours. Sorry, I must have been very sleepy, not even to have noticed what the title of the article was. -- Hoary (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Facial (sex act)

You just made a malicious edit. That is usually considered vandalism. I assume you were trying to make a point. Although I find it cute, continuing to do so without actually looking at the talk page discussion on it will result in all sorts of boo hooing. You have almost single handedly kicked off an edit war over something stupid (note the edit summaries reverting you) I will continue to revert malicious edits. I can only assume that this is all in good fun and you will refrain from continuing. Go ahead and mention it on talk after you look into it more. Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Explain it at the new ANI thread then. Cptnono (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever is the argument of someone who knows they are wrong. I am kind of shocked that you would edit war over something so dumb and intentionally disrupt an article. We have not always had the best rapport but then it got better. And now it is poor again. Sucks, dude. Hopefully it is just an off night for you since and admin who has edited in a contentious topic are pretty straightly shouldn't be looking to form vendettas. Talk to you in a couple days on more positive notes I hope. Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You will walk. Just like every other game player here does. Shame we cannot discuss in a civil manner anymore (well you might but I won't). You were right: Whatever is the key. I am off to be as disruptive as you now.Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did assume that was what it was. Looks like I was wrong to a certain extent. Would you have edit warred with another editor if you did not have spite for them? And if you have not responded to the archive discussion by now then you never will. There was good reason for that one stupid word. You know it even if you won't admit it.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The things you people find to argue about. FWIW I do think that the presence or absence of a smile is more relevant in the discussion of feminist analyses than is hair colour. However, as it is a drawing, the presence or absence of a smile says a lot more about the artist's intentions than what women participant's view may be.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

• From the editor: Stepping down

• Higher education summit: Wikipedia in Higher Education Summit recap

• News and notes: Wikipedians' surfing habits explored, Sloan Foundation renews $3M grant

• In the news: Britannica and Wikipedia compared; Putin award criticized; possible journalistic sockpuppeting

• WikiProject report: Listening to WikiProject Albums

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Tree shaping case comes to a close

• Technology report: WMF works on its release strategy; secure server problems

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Malik Shabazz,
Seeing as you are active in a sensitive topic area, and
Seeing as you have been a Wikipedia Admin for one year and eighteen months,
Please note that I find the following diffs to be unbecoming of any editor on Wikipedia but particularly one in your position:

1. 6 July, in which you accused your fellow Wikipedia Admins of lacking testicles and/or of being cowards.
2. 1 July, in which you used provocative sarcasm in order to taunt another Wikipedia editor.
3. 24 June, in which you accused another Wikipedia editor of having been warned countless times about WP:CV when in fact your warning was the first he ever received.
4. 19 June, in which you described a new Wikipedia editor's first and arguably good-faithed edit as vandalism.
5. 19 June, in which you referred to another Wikipedia editor as a jerk.
6. 15 June, in which you accused me on my Talk page of writing "mealy-mouthed double-talk," despite being asked to engage in an article's Discussion page and despite my edit being a good-faithed representation of a cited source.
7. 15 June, in which you reinserted a source that was shown not to support a claim being made in an article and summarized your reinsertion as "undo whitewash."

I note also that an article with which you were recently involved was protected yesterday for a period of one week on account of pointy editing on your part there.

I earnestly hope that you will reflect on your behavior in these incidents, tone down your rhetoric, be collaborative and not combative, and make more of an attempt to assume good faith toward other Wikipedia contributors.—Biosketch (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Malik, without digging into the context of every diff above, I certainly find two of these examples stepping beyond robust debate into uncivil language that I find surprising for an Administrator. Do you have any response to Biosketch's comments? Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That is one misrepresentation after another. Let's actually look at the facts here:

1. The diff cited is of Malik saying I'm not looking for blood, I'm looking for an acknowledgement from somebody, anybody, that likening other editors to terrorists is not acceptable behavior. The silence is deafening. An earlier edit he made to that discussion was his saying I can't believe that none of you has the balls to do it., which is where I am guessing Biosketch got the idea that Malik was accusing others of "lacking testicles". That is an absurd accusation to make, "doesnt have the balls" is a common colloquialism that does not mean one "lacks testicles".
2. Sarcasm isnt allowed? On user talk pages? Nuh uh, really?
3. That is the standard {{uw-copyright}} warning, and he does not accuse the editor of "having been warned countless times about WP:CV". There is a standard template and nothing else, to say otherwise is to mislead
4. The intentional blanking of sourced content without any reason is vandalism. Or, if it isnt, then neither are the edits removing "Jerusalem" as capital of Israel which are routinely reverted as vandalism (possibly once or twice by Malik, though I cant be bothered to look)
5. I was going to type a response here, but decided it would be better if I did not
6. So Malik is not allowed to comment on the quality of your edit now? I was under the impression that you you felt otherwise, that comments about others edits that are "peripherally about" an editor were acceptable. Color me confused.
7. Your position that the source does not back the content is not exactly undisputed, now is it?

nableezy - 13:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Nab's reading of these diffs. This complaint from Biosketch, a committed Israel-Palestine POV warrior, simply seeks disparage the actions of an admin that Biosketch regards as too neutral on his pet position. re diff 5; Being familiar with Malik's actions in past, I'm guessing that if he suggested anyone was acting like a "jerk" it was probably an understatement.

@Biosketch - If you think there is a really some substance to your complaint, there are more appropriate forums where you can get real action. Otherwise, quit biting at Malik's ankles. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Note: Bio appears to be upset I didn't provide evidence for my "POV" comment above. Anyone wanting "evidence" might want to examine Bio's contrib history. NickCT (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Biosketch, stop being an ass. In most cases, you're lying my omission—taking my comments out of context to make them seem provocative when they weren't.

1. I stand by my assertion that the uninvolved admins at A/E lacked the balls to block Jiujitsuguy. Not one of the targets of my remark has complained, but thank you for looking out for them.
2. Since when is it wrong to show Wiki-love to other editors?
3. Adjust your reading glasses and read User talk:Soosim (now archived). You will find that there are four or five notifications on the page before the message you describe as "the first [warning] he ever received".
4. I don't care whether an edit is an editor's first or hundredth; if it's vandalism, it gets labelled as vandalism.
5. Maybe you should visit the eye doctor. I was responding to Cptnono's comment in the preceding paragraph, in which Cptnono used the word "jerk". Trust me, I would have used a much stronger word to describe AgadaUrbanit's behavior.
6. You were engaged in "mealy-mouthed double-talk" and whitewashing the truth about Lieberman's attack of B'Tselem.
7. Your edit, which I reverted in part, was a "whitewash" of the truth about Lieberman.

Please let me know when you're finished reviewing my edit history from May, so we can discuss those edits. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fæ, let me give you a brief summary of the context: Biosketch and I don't see eye-to-eye about Israel and Palestine. 'Nuff said? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Our styles and expectations differ with regard to WP:5P (esp. "Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians"). As an administrator I feel I need to be seen to be complying with that principle and so I would aim never to label another editor a jerk in a discussion or say that a group of Wikipedians lacked balls as both these comments appear inflammatory and about the person rather than their actions. That's me, I don't expect other Admins to fully agree with my conservative interpretation. A pattern of disrespectful behaviour and rudeness would have to be long term and extreme before it became any more than a mild tut and seen as part of robust debate; I don't see that from the examples given and as there is only one complainant here there is no reason to look further. Cheers Fæ (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You overreached a little, Biosketch. I see the following as problematic especially for an admin

• number 2 was insulting and obnoxious. Not devastating but not OK from an admin he typically disagrees with. (note that it took at least one request for him to not comment as an uninvolved admin in the topic area at AE based on things like this)
• number 4 was simply editing in bad faith. The editor probably was attempting to be malicious but if anyone should be holding newbies hands it is an admin.
• number 5 isn't that bad However, and of way more concern concern was the edit in the same conversation where he said my comment was "a load of manure" I suppose it is nice that he didn't say "bullshit" instead is the only defense.
• number 6 was a completely unnecessary and insulting comment. If he can't word it better he should not be an admin.
• Regarding the protection: Malik edit warred while making pointy edits:[1](correcting the caption?)[2][3] and knickers in a twist from an admin was a little rude. At least he eventually removed his malicious edit after it was reported.[4]

All of the above is not the end of the world and won't result in the block of any established editor. However, it is completely inappropriate to find this many recent diffs showing a combative style from someone volunteering to be an admin. He should certainly continue to edit but it is time for him to give up the mop and bucket if he does not show an immediate 180.

And to be crystal clear: I do not see eye to eye with Malik. It is a shame because just a few months ago I felt much differently. Calling another editor in this very discussion an "ass" shows enough. It doesn't matter if you disagree with editors in the I-P topic area. You are still supposed to abide by the arbitrations decision (see: decorum) and should be showing more of an ability to converse in a civil manner as an admin or else you are starting too much trouble. Cptnono (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Fæ (talk · contribs), I appreciate your involvement and input here. As a general reply to the remarks above, the purpose of my comment was twofold: to give Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) the opportunity to offer his perspective on the incidents cited and to request that he make more of an effort to be civil and assume good faith in his interactions with other Wikipedia editors. Those are hardly reasons for people to get into a tizzy and shift attention and blame onto me. My record in the I/P topic area is impeccable, and any attempts to suggest otherwise are both exceedingly dishonest and a patent red herring.

User:Malik Shabazz, per WP:GBU I am encouraged to express my concerns directly to you before taking more serious action. That is your privilege as an Admin and I respect it. I wish that in your capacity as an Admin you would respect that as well and not refer to me as an ass for following a recommended procedure and trying to engage in dialog with you. Understand this: it is sufficient to respond to an editor's comments without making insults. If you will take that message to heart, my discussion with you will have served its purpose. If not, it will only prompt me and others to look for alternative ways to resolve the perceived problem in your regard.

Beyond that, I have no intention of turning this into a debate about diffs. Malik Shabazz explained his conduct per my request. At least for the time being, I consider this matter resolved.—Biosketch (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)