Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malik Shabazz

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

Malik Shabazz

Final (115/2/2); Closed by Rlevse at 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) – I have the pleasure of submitting user:Malik Shabazz for your general consideration to assume the duties of the mop-and-flamethrower™ here in English Wikipedia. While I have never met Malik in person, he is one of the few people on EnWiki that I was aware of prior to my wiki existence. He has always demonstrated, in my experience, a clarity of thought, a desire to be helpful, and, perhaps most importantly, a sense of humor. Malik is a wiki editor of near three years duration, and has over 30K edits in that time. His edits are primarily to article space, but he has amply participated in project space as well. He is polite, but firm when necessary, and in my opinion, would be an excellent addition to the admin corps—I hope y'all agree. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: If I'm entrusted with the tools, I intend to assist with the growing backlogs at WP:CSD, WP:AIV, and WP:RFPP. Of course I would continue to fight everyday vandalism as I have since I began editing here. In time, as I feel more comfortable using the tools, I would help in other areas as well.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'm particuarly proud of Malcolm X, which lost its GA status in March 2008. By September 2008, I had rewritten the article and brought it back to GA; it was promoted to FA in March of this year. I'm also proud of the work I did on Phil Ochs (GA) and the collaborative efforts in which I participated to bring Emma Goldman to FA and Haymarket affair to GA.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I'm sorry to say that I've been in a number of edit conflicts, and I haven't always kept my cool. About 18 months ago, I had a run-in with a group of Polish editors on several articles concerning Polish-Jewish history. I think we all assumed the worst about one other, and our behavior reflected those feelings. Since then, I joined WikiProject Poland and I believe I've repaired relations with most of the editors I had antagonized.

More recently, I was involved in conflicts with Rm125 (talk · contribs) at Haaretz and J Street and Wkiwoman (talk · contribs) at Barnard College. The specifics of the disputes don't really matter; I should have handled things more calmly than I did. I can only say that (a) I will work harder in the future to keep a cool head and (b) I would never use the tools in any dispute to which I am a party.

Additional optional questions from King of Hearts

4. Suppose someone creates an article with "Hi. I'm John Q. Public, and I am a significant and notable entrepreneur." What would you do in this instance?

A: The first thing I would do is change the lede to say "John Q. Public is a significant and notable entrepreneur."

If the article had no sources or only self-published sources, I would start by Googling John Q. Public to see whether he might satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If the Google results were hopeless, I would prod the article for lack of notability and COI. If they seemed marginal, I would tag the article as being of questionable notability and for a COI. If the Google results supported the editor's assertion that he is notable, I would tag the article for a COI. I would try to incorporate some of the more helpful Google hits as footnotes, external links or "further reading", and I might try to improve the article, depending on my schedule.

Regardless of the fate of the article, I would warn the editor about our COI guideline and, if appropriate, our notability guidelines.

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

5. Hypo: Assume that an editor complains to you that a particular admin, a nom in AfD efforts, has repeatedly made mistatements to support his position, and also engaged in wikihounding. Assume also that you have suggested to the editor that he try speaking to the admin, and that has not resolved the matter. What would you suggest as the next step? And is the admin held to a higher standard than other editors in this circumstance?

A: Starting with the last part of your question, I think in general admins are, and ought to be, held to a higher standard than other editors. They have been given community trust, and they must show, by their behavior, that they continue to merit that trust.

If an editor came to me with such a complaint, I would review the specifics of the situation. Allegations of Wikihounding should be taken seriously, but one must also consider whether the admin has been following the editor's contributions to correct similar problems on multiple articles (or to nominate multiple similarly flawed articles for deletion). Likewise, I would review the specific allegations of misstatements.

After reviewing the situation carefully, I would discuss it with the admin in question, regardless of whether I felt the admin had acted appropriately. Finally, I would circle back and let the editor know what I found and about my discussion with the admin. If the editor wasn't satisfied with the resolution of the matter, I would recommend that the issue be brought to AN/I.

Additional optional question from Lankiveil

6. Having looked at your user page, I see that there are some userboxes and opinions broadcast that might be controversial to some editors. I must state here that I note and welcome your stated commitment to NPOV on your user page, and after reviewing your contribs I cannot find any edits that are anything less than exemplary. However, do you feel that the contents of your user page might prove polarising and unhelpful in some more delicate disputes, especially those involving political topics? If so, do you have any particular plans or ideas on how to proactively deal with this?

A: I think that, as hard as we try not to let them, our biases affect the way we think (and therefore the way we edit). Thus I think it's constructive for editors to be up-front about their views so other editors know who they're dealing with. Unless an editor lets me know that she or he finds one of my userboxes offensive, I have no plans to remove any of them.

Having said that, if another editor felt that one of my userboxes made me a partisan in a political dispute, I would ask an uninvolved sysop to step in. Recently, an editor accused me of hating Khalid Abdul Muhammad because I'm Jewish, and I walked away rather than respond. If I were an admin and the situation required administrative action, I would have asked another administrator—maybe one of the "wikijews" or maybe not—to deal with the matter.

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

7. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: I've never edited under any alternate accounts, not do I expect to in the future. Before registering, I made a handful of edits as 63.122.87.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

Additional optional questions from Rschen7754

8. Explain in your own words what a 3RR violation is and how 3RR should be enforced.

A: A 3RR violation occurs when an editor makes more than three reversions to an article in any 24-hour period. If it appears that further disruption is likely, a 3RR violation probably should result in a block. Since blocks are not intended to be punitive, however, temporary page protection or agreement by the editor to abide by 1RR in the future may be appropriate in some cases.

Additional optional questions from Rschen7754

9. What is your position regarding poor edits that are not vandalism?

A: In general, they should be fixed. That's often easier said than done. Sometimes it's difficult to discern the editor's intent or meaning, especially if English is an editor's second language or if the edits are unsourced. Ideally, I would try to look for sources that might clarify or corroborate such edits and try to fix them, but in some cases I've had to remove them with the hope that another editor can make better sense of them than I can.

General comments

• Links for Malik Shabazz: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Malik Shabazz can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz before commenting.

Discussion

• Editing statistics posted on talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I like the answers to your questions, and currently, I have no reason to believe that you will do anything wrong witht the tools. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Support - I like your honesty about conflict. That seems to be a useful experience to have been through. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - Seen you around WP:ANI and elsewhere and see you doing well. Your qualifications are impressive and you answered the questions well. -- Atama頭 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Support - level headed editor and would make for a good admin. nableezy - 23:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - Intelligent contributor of content; collaborative in resolving disputes. Kablammo (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - Malik Shabazz is an outstanding editor and content contributor on a diverse range of topics, as well as a stalwart adversary of vandalism and tendentious editing. A person of avowed principles, in my experience Malik Shabazz has done an exceptional job of maintaining an open mind and neutral point of view, a commitment made at User:Malik Shabazz. I could point to many examples; just today I could admiringly cite Malik's measured and thoughtful contribution[1][2] to a potentially difficult discussion at Talk: Malcolm X.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - I have been appreciative of his efforts for a long, long time. It was a surprise to me that this hadn't already happened. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, great user; trustworthy and active, should be fine with the bit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
9. Excellent work. Deserves the tools. ceranthor 00:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Great user. Will not misuse the tools. December21st2012Freak ^chat 00:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Very level-headed, has an excellent understanding of Wikipolicy. Great admin potential.--Ramdrake (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
12. A thousand times yes. Malik is a fantastic asset to the encyclopaedia, author of highest-quality articles, always composed in temperament and adept at detecting a neutral point of view and deviations from it. No reservations whatsoever.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
13. Yep. Been familiar with his work for a while. We need more like this editor. Antandrus (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Great work around the place. Your answer to question four (especially the first sentence) shows that you can accept the bit without losing sight of the larger goal (i.e. building an encyclopedia). The (very) recent dispute is a little worrying, but you largely kept a cool head in frustrating circumstance and I respect that - very forgivable. Active behavior in talk namespace shows a desire and ability to collaborate with editors. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support as I can see no reason to not provide the mop and bucket. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Support (Belated) nom support. That's right, go transclude this while I'm away from a PC . Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
17. Support per the answer to question 4. A lot of people would A7 that, and I like that you both understand the speedy guidelines and are committed to helping to improve the encyclopedia, rather than a drive-by tagger or deleter. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 02:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Support absolutely. He always remembers that we are meant to be building an encyclopedia. Wiki needs more Malik Shabazz. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support strongly. Great editor, and nothing indicates that he would cause problems with the tools. JamieS93 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
20. Support based on this User's long history of making valuable contributions, and the level-headedness and intelligence I've seen from this User on more than one occasion. --AFriedman (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. Good editor, unlikely to abuse tools. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support I like your answers and think you'll use the tools well. Good luck! Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Support. Darn, I wish I could have been here earlier, to be on top of the list. Malik is a great content contributor. Few of us here have the equanimity to handle the abuse hurled his way, and few of those who can handle it with such grace. Can I call for WP:SNOW? Good luck in this process, Malik. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Why not? -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 04:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Support First encountered Malik on the Emma Goldman article (one of Wikipedia's finest articles) and have been impressed every time I've ever seen his edits. --JayHenry (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Support - Excellent, knowledgeable, civil editor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
27. Samir 05:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Support I found the answer to my question to be near perfect (I think WP:ADMIN offers up different possiblities in addition to ANI). Good enough for a support vote.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
29. Support. For the record, I'm one of the Polish editors that Malik refers to in #3. It was a very emotional topic and some of us responded a little too emotionally at the time. However, in the end, we resolved our disputes, worked cooperatively on some articles and developed friendly relations. In fact, I support Malik's nomination even more strongly *because* I had disagreements with him in the past and as a result I've seen how well he deals with these. Of course, Malik deserves the mop for many other reasons as well, which have already been mentioned above.radek (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

    I love a good hugfest--these kinds of comments are evidence of many things good about Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

30. Support Genuinely surprised that Malik wasn't an admin already. One of the very few editors who contributes to Israel-related articles who is able to maintain NPOV, and if he can do that, then adminship will be a breeze. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Why not. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
32. Support Yes, definitely. Seen his work on actuarial and Israel-Palestine articles, and am impressed by his fair approach and strict upholding of NPOV. Also like to see good article-building experience in an admin. He'll not abuse the tools. --NSH001 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Support Great candidate, clean block log, loads of experience and good contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
34. His answers to the questions as well as his contributions in general show a great deal of thought and also a willingness to admit mistakes (Q3). I am very impressed with his article work – he is able to take controversial topics (Malcolm X, Israel-Palestine) and work on them neutrally. Malik should do fine as an administrator. NW (Talk) 11:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
35. Support. I see good work and good interactions from this user. Radek sold me, quite honestly - you don't see praise like that very often at RFA. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
36. Strong support - agree with other supporters about his upholding of NPOV. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Support A capable, seasoned voice with considerable expertise and experience here. Good luck...Modernist (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Support - Wow... awesome answers...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Support I don't see much activity with CSD in the last months but the answer to Q4 confirms that the candidate has the necessary clue to know that it's better to try and fix stuff before tagging for speedy deletion and as such, I think they will do fine. On a side note: I never received a flamethrower with my mop. Who do I have to complain to? Regards SoWhy 13:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

     Bureaucrat note: Due to budgetary restrictions, we have been forced to substitute broom-and-pepper-spray™ units for the time being. As soon as we get some more funding, we will re-issue the standard units in the order of serial number . -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

40. Support Seems fine. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
41. Support Good answers, and a lot of good work, notably in areas of potential contention. I cringed when I saw someone request that be be blocked ANI Report for uncivil commentary, but when I looked into the issue I came away more convinced I should support.--SPhilbrickT 14:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
42. Support Very impressive. Warrah (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
43. Support Can't come up with a variant of "excellent candidate" that hasn't already been used above. Manning (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Good and honest answers. Shlomke (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
45. unwavering support we haven't always agreed, but i dig his style. untwirl(talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
46. Support - Looks fine.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support I like the answers and respect and admire his excellent work on the frontlines. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
48. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 17:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
49. Getting any article, let alone one on a controversial subject, to featured status is a mighty achievement. This plus “I don’t see a reason to oppose” (the latter being an absolute requirement for me) yields support. Bwrs (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
50. Support. Glad I saw this, Malik Shabazz and I seem to have several of the same articles on our watchlists so I've run across his edits a number of times, and he's always struck me as a thoughtful and conscientious editor with excellent judgment. I've actually considered nomming him for adminship before even though we don't know one another and RfA noms are not really something I do. His experience level is great and his answers above are terrific, and I'm always extra impressed by admin candidates that admit they have been in conflict before (it's not as though adminship will do anything to alleviate that!) and more importantly demonstrate that they handle conflict well and mostly with a cool head, since that's arguably the most critical skill for any administrator. Supporting Malik Shabazz for adminship is a no-brainer, and I'm sure he'll do excellent work in that capacity once this RfA sails through. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
51. Trusted. Pmlineditor ∞ 18:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
52. Support—we've had a few interactions, and I can find no problems with this user. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. I respect this user for his earnest effort at Malcolm X and the lack of reaction to what appear to be abusive posts to his talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
54. Support I often don't bother to comment when it's a fait accompli, but I frequently have seen this editor, and always been favorably impressed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
55. Support Solid. Ceoil (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. I'm a bit surprised he isn't an admin already! I've seen some of his stuff around before, and I am comfortable with supporting him. Joining the Polish WikiProject shows a great degree of willingness to step across the aisle and develop better relations. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
57. Per Drmies (both of his comments). - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
58. Yes Not much to be said here, good luck mate. ~ Arjun 21:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
59. Support Good answers and a trustworthy user. Pikiwyn ^talk 21:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
60. Support. Definitely! -- Banjeboi 22:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
61. Support TNXMan 01:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
62. –Katerenka ^☆ 05:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
63. Support It appears you will be an excellent addition to the admin corps. Good fortunes in all you do. Jusdafax 08:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
64. Support good answers. Sole Soul (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
65. Support. No problems, good answers and trustworthy. AtheWeatherman 10:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
66. Support. Good answers, honest, impressive history. LK (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
67. Support No worries. Good luck,--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 12:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
68. Support. I've seen Malik around for some time and I respect his work and temperment. He has the potential to be one of our better admins. Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
69. Suupport. This editor has exhibited tremendous growth as an editor over his time here. I believe that he has the judgment and temperament for the job. —mattisse (Talk) 13:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
70. Support I have never seen this user make an edit I did not respect or find constructive. No matter how busy I am, when Malik makes an edit to a page on my watchlist I always check it out - if it an edit to the article, I am curious to see how it was improved (confident that it was indeed improved) and if an edit to the talk page, I know it is a comment worth reading. I'm actually surprised he is not already a sysop. I am confident he will always be level headed, a moderating force, and use good judgment. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
71. Support - 70 supports and no opposes? Do I even need to review the contribs? (I did anyway), Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
72. Support Unconditional support for this candidate, I have run into him throughout my time here on Wikipedia and have never had a problem with him, I am very glad he has put himself out there to be an admin. RP459 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
73. Support. Excellent candidate -- Deville (Talk) 17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
74. Support. Experienced, mature and knowledgable. I believe this editor to be a great asset to Wikipedia and am delighted to have him as an administrator. -- œ^™ 18:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
75. Support. Well qualified. I wanted to nominate him about two years ago. Epbr123 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
76. No problems here. I trust you with the tools. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  20:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
77. Support - I trust this user with the tools. I believe this user will make a fine administrator. Razorflame 21:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
78. Support, no problems. GlassCobra 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
79. Support - Candidate is more than qualified. I am confident that he will use the tools well. Airplaneman ^talk 23:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
80. Support - Obviously Malik should be punished with Adminship. More than qualified. Also, Soap? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Crafty (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
81. Support Looks good to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
82. Support: superb candidate.. South Bay (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
83. Strong Support, I was not familiar with this candidate before this RFA, but after reviewing their contribs and their answer to Q6, I am convinced they'll make a fine admin. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
84. miranda 03:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
85. Support Nothing new I can contribute outside of an echo of the above. Congratulations. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
86. Support He's a level-headed contributor and a great asset to the project. It's highly unlikely he will abuse the tools. APK because, he says, it's true 11:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
87. Support The 'fan mail' gives me all the more reason to support. Well done for rising above it all. Polargeo (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
88. Support in the fullest sense of the word. I'm delighted that this editor has accepted the nomination as I consider Malik Shabazz to be an exemplar of the ideal Wikipedian. This should be a "slam dunk" (although I don't mean this in the WMD sense of the phrase), as far as I'm concerned. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
89. DVD 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
90. Support. Besides the qualifications, I'm glad to support a fellow Columbian (and fellow JTSer too according to your userboxes). Roar Lion Roar.Valley2city^‽ 01:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
91. Support per response to first neutral vote. Sluggo | Talk 02:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
92. Support, an excellent and patient editor with a thorough understanding of policy. Acroterion _(talk) 02:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
93. Support Excellent editor and content-provider over many subject areas, knows Wiki-policy, keeps a level head and shows NPOV. Dekkappai (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
94. Aye Ναι Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
95. Support, no apparent problems here. --candle•wicke 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
96. Support --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
97. Support – I've seen nothing but good from this editor. Don't let us down. MuZemike 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
98. Support based on all aspects of his work DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
99. Support. I've been impressed by your work, and I think you would do well.--Kubigula (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
100. WP:100 Support. Great user. Tim Song (talk) 05:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
101.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Malik Shabazz. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
102. Support. Absolutely. Very capable, excellent judgment. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
103. Strong Support: When examining your history at Wikipedia, I read through some of the abuse that has been thrown your way. I must say I found it a little unsettling. You have handled yourself well. You will be are a great asset to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC) PS see my user page, as imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
104. Support. I've always respected Malik for his ability to keep his cool in controversial disputes, and learn from past errors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
105. Support I have not encountered Malik before, but from everything I see here he is clearly an experienced, calm and clueful editor, and will be a valuable admin. PS If offered the option, choose the Shield over the Flamethrower. ;-) Abecedare (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
106. AGF Never heard of the candidate, but given that his most active editing areas are controversial subjects within Wikipedia, and none appears to oppose his candidacy, I will assume good faith on him.--Caspian blue 00:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
107. Support No doubts here. Steven Walling 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
108. Support - from what I've seen before and now, he clearly meets my standards: in particular - lots of edits including high-quality article work and sufficient WP edits, great Userboxen, and Barnstars. We do not agree on everything, but that's O.K. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
109. Support Looks good. The abuse seems to be from all sides (a good sign!) and the exchange in neutral #2 solidifies my support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
110. Support - I hate to pile on, but it looks like he deserves it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
111. Wizardman 03:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
112. Support - I've seen Malik around, and I have a good overall impression from various level-headed edits, for example, on Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.  Frank  |  talk  04:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
113. Support Good contributions all round, and good answers to questions. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
114. Support Good luck! America69 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
115. Support I would normally not bother when the vote is so one-sided, but I've encountered this editor in battlefield articles such as this one and he has managed to remain calm and even-handed throughout.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Weakest of opposing: Somebody had to do it. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) User is a recreation of banned user, so this !vote is invalid --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A moral oppose, eh? :) Crafty (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about it being a oppose because he is Jewish? I only opposed because I dislike the use of the number 0. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Sort of. I'd like to remind the admin-to-be that no-one is perfect, and that 99% support in your RfA does not mean you're automatically a good administrator. You can act differently when you become a sysop, and in any case, you'll need to be careful like everyone else: just because you don't seem to have any flaws, that doesn't mean you don't have any, it just means they haven't been shown up yet. One another point, you nee a more distinctive signature. (I don't have anything against the candidate, just such a warning - which applies to every admin - may not be heard otherwise.) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for your note. I'm well aware of my flaws, and I will continue to try to keep them off-wiki. :-)

   As far as my sig goes, I recently made a subtle change to it, but I'm not likely to make it colorful any time soon. — Malik Shabazz (talk · stalk) 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   George Washington was unanimously elected the first president of the U.S. by the delegates. He still used his presidential power well, says almost everyone. No one is perfect, but some decisions are no-brainers. --AFriedman (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. I looked through this editors disputes earlier in the week and thought there were issues around temperament and I am adding this here now to encourage the nominee to take his time with the new tools and to not use the tools in any situation where he is involved. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thank you for the suggestions. I have no intention of using the tools in any dispute to which I am a party, or on any article to which I've made significant edits. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I'm a bit concerned about your username, which according to your userpage is a byname of Malcolm X. While I'm aware that it was neither his birth name nor his most famous name, it still seems to me that you're appropriating his identity as your own. Also, I trust that you are good at maintaining a neutral PoV when editing controversial articles, but it seems that associating yourself with a controversial real-life person may make that difficult, especially now that you'll have the authority of an administrator. I notice that you seem to get an inordinate share of hate mail and wonder how much that might increase in the future. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   I've been using the "handle" Malik Shabazz in various online forums for many years now, and nobody yet has mistaken me for Malcolm X. ;-)

   On a more serious note, in my three years on Wikipedia I've received two or three messages about my username. I specifically chose the name Malcolm X used after his hajj, when he rejected racism. ("The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites make blanket indictments against Blacks.") I don't think I've run into any specific problems here because of my username.

   I've received a great deal of "fan mail", and I expect to get more whether or not I get the mop. Most of it has come from people who were unhappy that I reverted their vandalism or nominated their articles for deletion, although some of it has come from people who (a) didn't like my edits or (b) just don't like people who are Jewish or African-American. I'm not sure that my username attracted them.

   If I found myself in a situation in which an editor complained that my actions were based on racism, whether or not she or he pointed to my username, I would ask other admins to review my action. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

   To speak in general terms, it's generally not a problem when editors choose a username to honor people from history. Durova³⁴² 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Malik Shabazz, your User page contains the User boxes:
   1. This user is of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry.
   2. This user is Jewish.
   3. This user is not religious.
   4. This user respects the beliefs and religions of others.
   5. This user attends or attended Jewish Theological Seminary.

   All well and good, with the above, almost.

   My concern would tend to be focussed on User box number: "3) This user is not religious."

   I have noticed you "taking sides," here. Your expression...

   "Bus stop, the majority of the article is unsourced. Instead of obsessing about one section, why don't you help find sources for the rest of the article?"

   …shows little cognizance of the importance of reliable sources, that are verifiable. Is it just coincidence that you are supporting the "not religious" side in that debate? You go on, developing the same theme…

   "90% of the article is unsourced. Since you seem to be on a crusade to find sources, why don't you look for sources for other parts of the article? Your obsession with the subject of Jewish ethnicity across many Talk pages is becoming disruptive."

   …and on…

   "Bus stop, the entire article has a problem with insufficient sources. What is your obsession with this particular section? I understand that you've been blocked several times for disruptive editing concerning this very subject. Why don't you give it a rest?"

   My question to you is going to be direct:

   Are you going to use your newfound power to assure that religion is pushed out of articles in favor of your stated identity as being a Jewish person who is "not religious?"

   Obviously you can have any User boxes you choose. They are perfectly fine. I have no objection to your User boxes or your definition of self; I respect everything about your self-description. But there is a controversy that seems never-ending at Wikipedia. That controversy involves religion. The solution to that problem should be the Wikipedia solution. The "Wikipedia solution" would involve the use of sources that are reliable and verifiable. Nothing else will do. I hope you can uphold the impartiality that is called for in an administrator when it comes to the delicate and difficult task of describing religion on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

   Whether or not I get the mop, it's never been my intention to push religion out of any article. I think most readers would find that Who is a Jew? is bursting at the seams with information from the religious perspective.

   I also believe this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss a content dispute. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'd like to point out that a person saying they "aren't religious" is a far cry from saying they "hate religion". He's not even declaring himself to be an atheist, although if he did I wouldn't hold that against him either. -- Atama頭 16:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Atama, I'm not concerned that Malik Shabazz's user box says that he is not religious. I would not even necessarily be concerned if someone said that they "hated religion" or was an "atheist," unless this indicated an inability to be impartial. But I would be concerned if a person failed to appreciate the importance of reliable sources that are verifiable. I believe that neutral point of view is facilitated by keeping original research to a minimum, especially in a contested article. Bus stop (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

   Comment As religious person, I see no problems with edits. The perspective of the candidate coupled with a strong NPOV attitude is an asset to Wikipedia. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Ret.Prof, neutral point of view is supported by the providing of reliable sources for all assertions, especially in areas where disagreements are found. Reliable sources are not the only safeguard available in support of neutral point of view, but the providing of reliable sources is an important first step in achieving a neutral point of view. Bus stop (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Bus stop, I think this interpretation of NPOV is too hard on good editors. People's contributions are limited by their expertise, and it's perfectly plausible that a given editor would know more about one perspective on an issue than another. This should not prevent people from contributing to articles. As long as editors are not writing articles to deliberately introduce a systematic bias, I think it's acceptable for NPOV to be collectively accomplished by a group of people rather than single-handedly achieved by an individual. In my experience, Malik Shabazz has been a real team player when it comes to writing NPOV articles. --AFriedman (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   AFriedman -- no Wikipedia editor is exempt from the requirement to provide sources for material added to articles. Where material is not challenged, that material can stand, even in the absence of supporting sources — there isn't an automatic requirement to remove all material that does not have a source. But in a collaborative project, where disagreements arise with regularity, one cannot overlook the ultimate requirement that all material be supported by verifiable sources. When material is challenged, its source becomes its linchpin. When no source can be found for added material, that material is in need of removal or at least modification. This is Wikipedia standard operating procedure. It is also very logical. Original research, which for our purposes is defined as material that is not supported by reliable sources, lends itself very easily to point of view pushing. The aim should be for neutral point of view, therefore the avoidance of original research. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   I agree with what you just said. However, in a collaborative project where unsourced or unverified information has been added, another possibility is to add the tag so that (1) the citation status of the passage is clear, and (2) editors are reminded of this additional task being on WP's to-do list. Deletion is not the only option in a collaborative article. The difference between unverified material and OR is also clear most of the time, IMO. But I think we're straying off the topic of Malik Shabazz. --AFriedman (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   AFriedman -- Here and here are the relevant pieces of material. You will notice the presence of numerous tags on the article page. (In all fairness some of those "citation needed" tags are placed on material I put in the article.) You will also notice on the article Talk page that Malik Shabazz repeatedly agues against my requests for citations. Bus stop (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.