Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 00:57, 16 July 2016 (Reverted 1 edit by Walesberta1 (talk) to last revision by NeilN. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Malik Shabazz/Tabs

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

This is Malik Shabazz's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz

In August 2015, the administrator privileges of Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were revoked under the Level I desysop procedure, which is intended as a temporary measure. The Arbitration Committee has satisfied itself that the account was not compromised and that any ongoing disruption at the time has ceased. Accordingly, we affirm that Malik Shabazz may be resysopped at his request at any time.

Support

Callanecc, Casliber, Courcelles, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Kelapstick, Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis

Not voting

DeltaQuad, Guerillero, Keilana, Salvio giuliano

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration Committee motion regarding Malik Shabazz

Cross-posted for the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Took only 300 years to restore a good name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

All-white jury

You have expressed an interest in this article. Any comments you might care to offer, regarding my edit suggestions, would be welcome. Gulbenk (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me, Gulbenk. I had forgotten about it. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 20:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz to label my edit as vandalism is an irresponsible act on your part. I shall pursue that further in the appropriate forum. There was a lengthy discussion on this matter, where I presented of reasoned argument for the edit. Gulbenk (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but blanking the entire section, sources and all, suggests you didn't bother to read any of them, or my argument on the talk page. See WP:Vandalism#Blanking, illegitimate. — MShabazz /_Stalk 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Malik, it's good to see you back, but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on this particular point. I think you were right in every other respect, mind you, but as I see it, Gulbenk at worst made a mistake. He was trying to make the article better, according to his own interpretation of 'better'; he was not replacing paragraphs with "LOL GAY" or such. To this end, I have revdel'd the edit summary. DS (talk) 00:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

You're right, DragonflySixtyseven, the edit certainly wasn't on that level. I apologize to you, Gulbenk. While we disagree fundamentally about how to improve it, I agree with DragonflySixtyseven that you're trying to make the article better, and I shouldn't have referred to your edit as vandalism. May I suggest that we ask for a third opinion or try some other means of getting input from other editors? — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to assist in any small way. Gulbenk what are your major issues with the article at this stage, having read the latest comments on the article T/P, which seem to indicate that the article is balanced by the prominent passage However, the phrases "all-white jury" and "all-black jury" may raise the expectation that deliberations may be less than fair, and in a balanced and intelligently located citation and with a detailed note gives the example of the O.J Simpson aquittal? To my uninvolved eye this is a powerful statement as to the NPOV character of the article. I am seeing no glaring problems with the article at this point in it's development. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Irondome thanks for your offer. Both Malik and I are pretty tied up in this issue, so a third party opinion would be most welcome. I will repost my concerns (added recently to the article Talk page) and take my lumps if I'm wrong headed in my thinking:

The term "All-white jury" presupposes (pre-judges) an outcome, from the beginning. That is demonstrated by the language you just cited, stating that the term "all-white jury" raises "expectations" of unfair outcomes. Expectations are presumptions, not facts, and they are not always borne out. So the first paragraph states that people feel that all-white juries are unfair. Then the article never proves that point. Instead, it documents at length another, different, point. That racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is illegal, and that this form of discrimination has a long history in the US. That argument is well documented, and not disputed here. Finally, the article seeks to reinforce the first point (unfairness) by listing a number of high profile cases. The references to the cases confirm that they existed (that was never in question) but the references do not prove that the racial composition of the jury was the reason for the specified outcome. The inclusion of this section (which I tried to remove) simply implies that point, just like "expectations" implies something unproven. There has been research in this area. I can (and will, if necessary) cite a lengthy published article written by the preeminent researcher in this field, who is already cited in this article for a related study, which shows that the polar opposite of the "expectations" implied in this section have been demonstrated in his mock jury research. But he also goes on to say that no proof has been offered to show that mock jury research results correlate with real world jury results, or that historic jury verdicts can be shown to result from jury racial composition alone. No proof, just "expectations". The article works when it documents the history of racial discrimination in juror selection, but goes off the rails when it tries to play to popular prejudice (expectations) of unfair verdicts from all-white juries. Gulbenk (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And I remain concerned that in their haste to transform the focus of the article, Gulbenk may be setting impossibly high standards for "proof" that all-white juries led to specific outcomes. Since a jury trial is a one-time event that can never be replicated, causation can never be proven, but (as I wrote) when an all-white jury takes less than an hour to acquit a white defendant who has admitted that he kidnapped, tortured, and killed a black boy, and the jury and defendant leave the courthouse together smiling and shaking hands, I believe historians have met the burden of proof that an all-white jury was a cause of the outcome.

I am also concerned that Gulbenk is hacking out of the article as "unsupported editorializing" important historical facts about the exclusion of African Americans from juries that don't fit their worldview, when those facts can be easily verified with 30 seconds' work in Google Books. (Another example: .) — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 02:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I would request no further edits be made to the article, until I get my head around this. I have two upcoming mentoring efforts which may be challenging to my patience and nervous system. I have some tentative proposals which I will present regarding the present and future direction of the article which may be interesting and stimulating both for colleagues and our readers. I would ask both of you, respected colleagues, for a little time, as I will be a bit stretched both in R/L and on WP for the next fortnight or so. Bear with me please. Regards, Simon Irondome (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 03:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Gulbenk (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk page protection

Malik, I've protected your talk page for a day after the disruptive proxy editor moved here when the noticeboards were protected. If you don't want protection please let me/any other admin know and it can be removed. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 04:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

Please stop removing the information about the celebrities that support "All Lives Matter". It is very clear judging by your user page that you are here to only force a viewpoint upon others by removing reliably-sourced arguments against the Black Lives Matter campaign, not to contribute to the encyclopedia. While we are accepting of people including those who have different opinions towards subjects, Misplaced Pages article needs to represent all viewpoints stated from reliable sources. If there is information from a reliable source, keyword being RELIABLE SOURCE, such as NBC News, that is not in a Misplaced Pages article, it needs to be added whether or not you think people "don't care". editorEهեইдအ😎 15:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about. Use the talk page instead of bullying your bullshit into the article. Nobody cares what Janet Jackson thinks about politics. Not everything that appears in a reliable source belongs in an encyclopedia article. See WP:ONUS. And for god's sake, learn how to spell! The word is "different", not "indifferent". — MShabazz /_Stalk 16:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I Wanna Be Your Dog#Covers

Malik, I just wanted to apologize for an edit I made to the page I Wanna Be Your Dog#Covers which you reverted in April. The cover which I added (Psychonaut 4) was by a band which had a page on either the Russian or Georgian (Kartuli ena) Misplaced Pages at the time of my edit if I recall correctly; they no longer do, and so long as this does not change, I will make no attempts to re-add the cover. As well, I will not add the band myself, as I do not know what qualifies a band as "notable". Thank you!

24.141.188.82 (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's no problem. Periodically fans add covers of songs by their favorite bands to articles and we have to remove them. Usually the threshold for inclusion is whether the band has a Misplaced Pages article of their own (en.wiki). Not being familiar with their genre, I didn't realize that Psychonaut 4 had an article in a non-Englsih Misplaced Pages.

Our criteria for what makes a band sufficiently notable for an en.wiki article of their own can be found at WP:BAND. Speaking generally, a band has to get a lot of press coverage, or produce a record that charts or goes gold, or something of that caliber. Thanks for writing. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

AIV

Probably not useful to ask for revdel at AIV for an already blocked editor as the bot will remove your request (I was in the process of revdelling after the block). --NeilN 00:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)