User talk:مھتاب احمد سنڌي

Welcome![edit]

Hello, مھتاب احمد, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Jogi 007 (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Join this discussion[edit]

@مھتاب احمد: Ada Mehtab, kindly comment here, Meet up in Pakistan...Jogi 007 (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan[edit]

Hello Mehtab, I saw that you twice removed the Karachi list from Wiki Loves Monuments Pakistan page. I suggest you to please avoid it because you're disturbing the project. Karachi list is there for convenience of participants, not for a political reason. If you keep doing it, I will have no option other than to ask complete protection of page. @Ymblanter:. --Saqib (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will just go for a block if this continues.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys if you are doing for convenience then do it for Punjab, Baluchistan and KPK otherwise only Karachi is not acceptable. Kindly do so otherwise I will raise this issue before Wikimedia authorities and on social media. I hope you will cooperate.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for WP:LEGAL--Ymblanter (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.[reply]

Mehtab: Even though you're now blocked but I thought of letting you know that I have moved sites situated in Lahore to separate page for the convenience of users. Now all major cities of Pakistan have separate lists including Islamabad. @Ymblanter: --Saqib (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate, but you have not done good by deleting my works on commons just because I raised my concerns.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made a legal threat and I indefbocked you per WP:LEGAL. If you retract it, I may consider unblocking you.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:, What is the procedure to retract? Can you help me.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please unblock Mehtab. But Mehtab you should be careful in the future. --Saqib (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

مھتاب احمد, please write here that you are not going to solve internal Wikimedia problems in the future by appealing to external agents.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, I will not be doing so.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked you, happy editing.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Tariq Baloch[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Tariq Baloch, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
It appears to be about something made up, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Störm (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Tech Mela. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 10:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: my due apologies. I hope you will help us to reach a consensus.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban[edit]

Per consensus formed here you are topic banned from all deletion discussions (known on en.wiki as "XfD"). The ban can be appealed on WP:AN or WP:ANI in not less than three months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In case there was any confusion, I want to clarify the topic ban includes all deletion discussions, including deletions for review and requests for deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I am not going to request removal of ban because I feel that it was biased decision.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Hi مھتاب احمد. Can you please format your comments before posting. This can be done using the WP:PREVIEW button. I have fixed it up for you, for now. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018[edit]

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. —DoRD (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Special:Diff/854461478

You left a message on Elephanthunter's talk page, notifying them of the sockpuppet investigation report that you filed. Your motive was obvious; to influence the outcome of the report. You knew that the said user was engaged in dispute with the editor you were reporting. That is overt canvassing, which our policy prohibits. If I saw you doing that again, I will request admin action. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and refrain from abusing warning templates, as you did on my talk page. That is a blockable offense, too. Watch your step. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for proxy-editing and battleground conduct in the India-Pakistan topic area.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have spelled out the evidence and reason for the block in greater detail here (see last para). Your indefinite block need not mean forever but you will need to provide some convincing account for your recent activities and assurance that the sort of editing that led to the recent topic ban and this block will not recur. Abecedare (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

مھتاب احمد سنڌي (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not break my topic ban. Topic ban was about deletion discussions and I have had nothing to do with any AfDs since I was disallowed from that area. The other reason given for block is that just because I have become interested in SPI area means I am doing proxy edits and battleground. This is completely incorrect. Just because I have been on the SPI board catching socks and their masters does not make me a proxy editor. I did used to make minor edits before May sporadically but after the May ARCA decision to ban 10 disruptive editors in the India-Pakistan topic area I became interested in the disruption caused by users in this area so I took a proactive interest in SPI to catch the socks and at AE too. Thats my right as a Wikipedian to edit areas I am interested in, whether that is editing content in articles or filing SPIs which is all completely my choice. In my first SPI filing, User:My Lord's sock was caught and blocked by User:Ivanvector [1] When the sock was caught his friends such as User:Lorstaking, User:Razer2115, etc etc, went out of their way to try and get the sock unblocked.[2][3][4][5] When that did not work they spread false rumours to others that me and anyone else catching their friends' socks at SPI were doing proxy edits for others.[6] This is the context behind this current scenario. Clearly this block was just caused by those rumours, spread by friends of socks I have caught, and is not based on concrete evidence. Actual concrete evidence is the kind shown by me in my last SPI filing that Lorstaking's friends are at the very least a WP:TAGTEAM. My SPI filings are completely my own and I intend to continue to be active on the SPI board once unblocked to continue catching socks and their masters. مھتاب احمد (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not about your topic ban; read the block notice to see. I don't see the blocking admin basing the block off any "rumours", but simply on your battleground editing in the area, and on the difference in style and language between your SPI filings and your other editing. His examples are very convincing as far as I'm concerned. Bishonen | talk 11:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Email[edit]

I have forwarded the email you sent me to Arbcom since you apparently have already appealed your block to them. As you acknowledge in your email, your account was (with your permission) being used by another person over the past two months. Since I as an admin have no way of confirming whether you have regained exclusive control of your account, I cannot unblock you. If the arbcom decides that to be the case and trusts that you can edit within wikipedia's policies and guidelines, they may choose to do so. Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: It has been almost two months but I haven't heard any update regarding my unblock. I request you to kindly accept my apologies and I assure that I will not repeat such mistakes in future.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: I am still waiting for your response.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ball is in arbcom's court since only they and the checkusers have the tools to confirm that you now have sole control of your wiipedia account, which would be a necessary (though not sufficient!) condition for your unblocking. I had forwarded them your last email to me on Sep 9 2018 and, if my understanding is correct, the person who was previously using your account had also contacted them. You can email them directly explaining the circumstances and requesting an unblock. If they need to contact me for input, they'll know how to reach me. Abecedare (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: thank you for your kind response.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

مھتاب احمد سنڌي (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's third year going on an I'm unable contribute to English Wikipedia. I had accepted violations of Wikipedia policies in my previous request but ArbaCom could not reach a conclusion on my issue. This time I request for removal of all kinds of blocks and I assure, I'll abide by policies in my conduct. Thanks! مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If ArbCom could not reach any conclusion, this is the end of the line. I'm not permitted to lift the block as you acknowledge you allowed your account to be compromised, so WP:COMPROMISED applies. You are welcome to contact ArbCom again unless they told you otherwise, but there's nothing to be done here. Yamla (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I am copying below, for the record, my response to an emailed unblock request from مھتاب احمد سنڌي that I received today:

Thanks for getting in touch instead of simply creating a new account (which, if/once discovered, would get you blocked again with even a slimmer chance of being allowed back).
Unfortunately though, given the circumstances that led to your block, someone with (at least) Checkuser permissions will be needed to confirm that you have control of your account. Also, since ArbCom has been contacted about this previously and has not seen it fit to unblock your account (for whatever reason), an admin like me cannot simply overrule them. I would therefore advise you to contact ArbCom again, explain the circumstances, and see if they are now ready to unblock you.
Best wishes.

Abecedare (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up from arbcom[edit]

This user's unblock request was declined above due to arbcom's involvement and the account compromise/sharing discussed previously, which occurred in 2018. Owing to the length of time since the sharing occurred, it is sufficient for us that this unblock appeal be reviewed by normal community processes.

مھتاب احمد سنڌي, thank you for your patience, you may submit a new unblock request if you wish. Please see the guide to appealing blocks for guidance on preparing an effective community appeal of the battleground editing aspect of your block. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

مھتاب احمد سنڌي (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was the third time I had appealed to arbcom to unblock my account over charges of battleground conduct. These charges were rightly put but my mistake was to let another user make use of my account. However, since then I changed my password and username. The account is fully in my control and I don't have any contact with the person(s) involved in vandalism or misuse of Wikipedia. I'm an independent user and I focus on articles related to Sindh. Though I have limited my contributions to Sindhi Wikipedia and other projects, I occasionally feel the need to make necessary changes in pages of my interest. Hence, I request my unblock with the surety of not misusing my account in the future.مھتاب احمد سنڌي (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It's plausible that the account is back under the control of the original editor, and given the passage of time and assurance that it will not be misused again, I am accepting the unblock request. Thanks for your patience and best wishes. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: You placed this block in 2018. I shall not be surprised if after that much time you have no opinion about it, especially as you don't seem to be very active recently. However, if you do wish to comment I shall be interested to read what you say. My feeling is that after so long a time I am willing to give the editor another chance. JBW (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW: Thanks for the ping. Looking at my editing history from the period and my wikipedia email, here is my reconstruction of events:

I received a complaint about the editor's alleged proxy editing on my talk page on Aug 11 2018
Based on behavioral evidence, I was satisfied (see last para here) that the account was being used to make proxy-edits in furtherance of the usual battles in the India-Pakistan topic area .
On Sep 8, 2018 the editor emailed me admitting the proxy-editing and said that the person who was then controlling their account had emailed arbcom appealing the block. The editor also said that they had since regained control of their account; since I could not confirm the latter claim and the matter was being handled by arbcom, I (and other admins) had turned down the previous unblock requests.

However, given Opabinia regalis' note and the مھتاب احمد سنڌي's assurance, I have no objection to the account being unblocked now. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]