Talk:Mubin Shaikh

message: The July 15 CBC article is not clear on whether he was a PAID informant. - Mcasey666 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since he claims he is still owed backpay, yes he was clearly being paid for his work. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Was he paid by CSIS?

message: Similar to the case of Zaynab Khadr, I'm not sure how to go about with the wikiformalities of when the subject of an article seems to want to include their contact details in the body of the article.  Perhaps we should create a template for talk pages stating "The subject of the article, 'subject, has indicated that they are open to receiving communication from interested parties, at the following method of communication"? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: eMail address

message: Every source I've seen identifies Shaikh as having acted as a paid informant, including his own interview and self-outing.  I think it's duplicitous to start referring to him as an "agent" halfway through the article.  Changed to be consistent. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  20:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation - would you agree that your status would be "informant" rather than "agent"? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Informant/Agent

message: *He says he drove the group around in his (wired) van, did none of the others have a driversLicense/car? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead)  11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an update in case anybody cared, learned today that at least one other member of Shaikh's target group did have a van himself. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  22:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Details

message: Why does this guy have such a long article? Cut it down to only his involvement in the terror plot and remove the idiotic, self-promotional pictures. I really don't care about his public speaking or other activities.Scott 110 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than subjective terms like "idiotic", I confess I don't understand the crux of your complaint, should we likewise remove all history of Charles Whitman up until he was actually in the bell tower? People's backgrounds are important, do not delete entire sections just because you dislike someone. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  05:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a question of notability and relevance, why should all this background information be included on this guy when the only thing that makes Shaikh have this article in the first place is his involvement in the terror plot?Scott 110 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that makes Charles Whitman notable is his involvement in the tower shootings, the only thing that makes Ziad Jarrah notable is his piloting of Flight 93 and the only thing that makes Lee Harvey Oswald notable is a single balmy November afternoon. Doesn't mean we don't include full context - please stop vandalising the article. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  07:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So just because I don't agree with your point of view, that means I'm vandalising the article? I don't think so buddy. All the articles you mentioned don't have two nearly-identical pictures of the same guy, in the same pose. Also, you're equating Lee Harvey Oswald to Mubin Shaikh?? Unless you can come up with better reasoning than this, I think we'll be reverting back for now.Scott 110 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to start a RfC on the matter if you'd like, but taking autonomous action to remove half an article because you think it's "idiotic" is vandalism, yes. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't explained why we need two pictures of this guy in the same pose, or why such intricate details of his personal life are relevant to the article. Until then, nice try. Scott 110 (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said, feel free to RfC the issue - but unless you do, your removals are very clear vandalism. All biographies include details of the person's personal life so long as they are not needlessly salacious - and it would be strange to have a full-body photograph as the main profile image - so it is given later in the article. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  08:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No they're not, and again just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean they're vandalism. I have removed your "warning" from my talk page and posted one on yours instructing you not to leave such superflous statements. Further I am reverting the article because you still haven't made any rationale for keeping said content.Scott 110 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact you don't accept the rationale is not the same as saying I haven't given any rationale. It is not required to convince every single reader - only to meet community standards, which I have clearly done. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  00:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You violated the 3RR and have been warned accordingly.Scott 110 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:3RR carefully, clear vandalism such as mass deletion may be reverted as often as is necessary to prevent vandals from disrupting an article. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  00:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your interpretation is borderline of a personal attack.Scott 110 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see vandalism, rather a content dispute. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Not trying to be flippant here but I have to say the second photo of Shaikh (the one where he has the hooded top on) does come across as unintentionally humourous.  He looks like he's at a fashion shoot for Jihadis.  But hey, if that's the best photo we've got of him, leave it in there.  I'm not a signed in, registered Wikipedia user so not sure how to leave an i.d. 'tag' after this comment...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.32.218 (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Self-Promotional

message: Interesting fact,  Mubin's parents are First cousins. Father & mother from Gujarat State.His Grandfather is retired police officer in India.76.71.17.88 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And where are these facts from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedcables (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, without verification it would be Original Research at best, or  libel at worst. Hence it won't be included in the article. By the way, Twistedcables, need you to throw a verification on the end of his "pleading guilty" when you find one. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  22:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, and that is why it's not allowed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  20:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: I think that there are too many self-promotional pictures in the article. It would be best to remove some of them. Cooolway (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As the photographer who took the images, I don't see how they're "self-promotional" (by definition they can't be, since I took them...and as a point of interest, Shaikh is "very unhappy" with this article and has eMailed me to complain). One image is the standard "torso-up shot", one shows him in full...let's say "gear", because I think he is the type of person who identifies himself largely through his...eclectic clothing choice, and finally a picture of him at the mosque his father runs. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  18:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think he, or I, am hoping to promote him towards? A major film deal? His next top-secret assignment hoping CSIS recruits off Wikipedia? The idea they're "promotional" seems ludicrous, which is why I keep asking for explanation. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  05:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures? 

message: WRT to this edit, with the edit summary: "rvt per discussion, if lawyers and media deem it relevant to report, it is relevant to record here in a neutral fashion."  That is right out of WP:VER.  As wikipedia contributors we are not allowed to report on things we know from our personal experience, because that is not verifiable.  Sherurcij is absolutely correct that material verifiable from Reliable sources should be the basis of our articles.  They should be cited even if we personally disagree with what the references stay.  
Neutrality is important.  Sherurcij acknowledged that.  Concerns over neutrality should be brought up here.  Geo Swan (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: WRT to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mubin_Shaikh&diff=prev&oldid=311025346 this edit]

message: Following increasingly threatening eMails from Shaikh, I will explain my most recent revert since he feels my summary of "rvt per discussion, if lawyers and media deem it relevant to report, it is relevant to record here in a neutral fashion" was not adequate to explain my reasoning to disallow his removals of his own criminal record and drug addiction, which were strongly recorded in the trial and the media circus surrounding it.
*He removed the sourced statement "Days before his testimony was expected in court, he approached the federal police and unsuccessfully requested $2.4 million in exchange for a promise to "aggressively defend the evidence" in his testimony, as well as stay off drugs and halt his media interviews", this is unacceptable whitewashing - we are not writing hagiographies, we are writing an encyclopedia - and if we have 10 paragraphs in the J. Edgar Hoover on whether he was homosexual or a cross-dresser, I think it's fair to say we are not in the habit of removing potentially "damaging" facts just because people think it's unfair to tarnish "heroes".
*He removed the paragraph reading "Shaikh appeared as a witness at an acquaintance's second degree murder trial, where aspects of his testimony were disputed. He was also charged, in an unrelated incident, with the assault of his aunt - though the charges were dropped." - I would feel that since the media reported on these stories not as "Toronto man charged..." but as "Toronto 18 informant charged..." - they bear relevance - but would be open to talk-page discussion on the matter since I recognise BLP concerns and dropped-charges can merit debate on the subject.
*He changed the sourced phrase "He was allegedly told that several friends had planned a training trip" to "He was allegedly told that training was planned", although the word "friends" and "trip" are from the cited source. I feel his change is done primarily to make the incident seem more ominous than the actual reporting suggested.
*He changed the sourced sentence "As of January 2007, he claimed that he was owed $300,000 from the RCMP for his role, which was then paid at the start of preliminary hearings for the Young Offenders." to "He was known to have been paid $300,000 from the RCMP for his role in January 2007, prior to the preliminary hearings for the Young Offenders. " which I feel undercuts the fact he went to the media to complain that the police had never paid him for his role and they then paid him. 
*He has stated "A trial by jury is believed to begin early 2010." which is WP:OR and unclear, a trial of Shaikh? Of Amara? Of Khalid? Gaya? Since plea bargains are appearing in the news as we speak, it seems odd to think that all of the 18 members (many of whom have had their charges dropped) are proceeding to trial next year. If a more clear sentence can be sourced, it can be re-added.
*He changed the sourced wording of being called "Taliban-boy" and "Osama bin Laden" by schoolchildren, leading to a physical altercation for which he plead guilty to uttering threats.
*He changed "cut off your legs" to "chop off your legs", a google search shows both are easily sourced - so I have reverted to include his edit since he likely knows which wording is more accurate.
*He removed the sourced paragraph stating "Subsequently, Shaikh was alleged to have "ripped off his top", throwing it to the ground and challenging male students to an altercation - a charge that Shaikh has said is "fabricated and exaggerated". Police say he then drove away "erratically".", this again seems to be an attempt to whitewash his public image. 
Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  18:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Further edits by Shaikh

message: This source was used in the article and i have substituted it with a {cn} tag because it does not meet basic requirements of WP:RS. It is not clear: Who is the author? Does the author and publisher have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Who is the publisher? Who owns the website?... IQinn (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The author of the site interviewed me and I was ok with it.  MS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.183.131 21:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Who interviewed you? Who wrote the source articles? Who is the owner of this web site? Who are you? IQinn (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable source [http://thefacesbehind.net/ "thefacesbehind.net"]

message: THE ENTIRE entry on this guy is questionable - an editor using his own site as a source? somebody has it in for this guy because there have been several guilty pleas as well as newly released info suggesting this agent had nothing to do with running the camps (the guy who did just admitted to it) - there is info in here that has no relevance to the case itself - there is a blatant hate-on for the subject of the entry - IQINN thank you for asking the questions; it appears the initials suggest M (Mubin) S (Shaikh) but anyone can put that, maybe even the same editor noted above.  Actions must be taken.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.183.131 (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what's going on here, but the same IP address that earlier signed "MS" is now talking about MS in the third person and "speculating" on why "he" signed MS; and to make it more strange, he vandalises the article to call Shaikh a terrorist/spy/badMuslim...but also whitewashes the article claiming it's unfair to list his criminal convictions and speaks of himself as being MS. Yet he also signs his name HM sometimes...How can one anonymous IP be behind both the "positive spin" and "negative spin" in the article? (and other than an edit to Reebok in 2007, this is the only article the IP has touched). I'm about this close from just abandoning the article and letting the jackals have their way with it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead)  13:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New section

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Is he Ahmadi?  Moorrests (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadi?