Talk:Shah Yaqeeq Bukhari

A near copy, cannot be by accident
I don't have access to any versions of Shah Aqeeq Baba, but from I remember this is pretty close what the deleted article looked like. The editor that created this article has been around for a while, however the timing of the creation of this article after Shah Aqeeq Baba was AfD'ed is too coincidental to be ignored. The editing behavior of مھتاب احمد is also rather consistent with Hammadsaeed, as well. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 22:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What's wrong, kindly tell me in simple words.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Boomer, you are correct that it isn't a coincidence. The new page essentially duplicates the original deleted article (as is expected because the deleted article was essentially a translated copy of that which remains on other language sites). This one however includes more references, which Satdeep Gill expressed confidence in as reliable sources. It was probably created per request -- Hammadsaeed did contact users here and on other languages sites requesting the recreation of the article. He is now indefinitely blocked and effectively banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. But that is not meant to prevent the creation of any article on a topic which can meet Wikipedia policies. So, at this point IMO, it is best to review the article on its own merit. And, of course, continue to report obvious socks to Sockpuppet investigations/Hammadsaeed as they occur -- such as the latest one today. — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can agree with keeping of the article, if notability as well as acceptable references has been established, as you said Satdeep Gill has done. A solution I could think of is a extended confirmed protection to protect this article for being edited altogether by any meat or socks of Hammadsaeed. The editor that created this article is confirmed to be Hammadsaeed. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to the evidence of persistent sock puppetry on previous versions of this article, I have semi-protected the page from non-confirmed users (per guidelines at WP:PP). This should allow time for you to edit the page for problematic or unverified text -- or enlist help from experienced language-proficient editors. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I corrected my above statement. Sorry about the typo, I was in a rush to finish it so I could leave for work. To clarify what happened, I apologized to Hammadsaeed on the Simple English version of Wikipedia for my assuming of bad-faith on his part. This came after Satdeep Gill had reviewed the Simple English version of Shah Aqeeq Baba, and deemed that the BBC Urdu reference was indeed reliable. I honestly felt bad for assuming that Hammadsaeed had not taken to heart, or even read any of the policies that a few editors, myself included, had directed him towards. I also struck out my comments that showed my faulty assumption. He responded with the link provided above in which he stated, "you are apologising here but your are still pursuing me on english version??", which is also an external link to this article talk page. That is an absolute confirmation that مھتاب احمد is confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Hammadsaeed. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 07:56, 20 March 2017

(UTC)


 * why are you destroying my Wikipedia career? I am among the most active users on Sindhi Wikipedia for past one and a half year. I have not created a single article on any other wiki than Sindhi, (except one on Urdu Wikipedia). I have rigorously worked on Sindhi Wikipedia. In recognition, a blog was also published on Wikimedia Blog by Muzammiluddin Syed, you can check it here. I hope you will get the difference between Hammad and me.--مھتاب احمد (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am fully with Mehtab. In order to dispel your assertion, here is the requested CU--Muzammil (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Transferred to Enwiki Checkuser. --Muzammil (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

It's more than an assertion when another editor admits that another account belongs to them, as linked above. Did you bother to check it, or that your CU was denied? Once a CU clears مھتاب احمد as in no way connected to Hammadsaeed (which I doubt given the evidence), I will no longer pursue them as a sockpuppet of Hammadsaeed. As I said to CactusWriter, the behavioral evidence, the creation of this article after the deletion of Shah Aqeeq Baba, as well as the linked confession of مھتاب احمد being a sockpuppet of Hammad, there is little room to doubt whether or not this is true. Regardless of previous constructive contributions. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * CU is denied at Meta because because we've one here. Your friend User:Bbb23 removed my request on EnWiki. I request you to please, please reformat my request and post it on appropriate forum. Let there be no doubt about who is who. Advance thanks for this. --Muzammil (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but since you are so keen to deride overwhelming evidence brought forth as a "assertion", the burden to prove that Hammadsaeed is not مھتاب احمد is on you. Bbb23 denied your case ''due to the fact that you requested it on the Meta Wikimedia site. If you want to prove that this is indeed that case, and I am incorrect, you should be more than willing to figure out how to fill out an SPI case here on the English Wikipedia. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have nothing to say further. --Muzammil (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you at least provide any evidence that is to the contrary? As I've said, I've already provided plenty of evidence which is more than adequate to determine that مھتاب احمد is Hammadsaeed, including a linked post in which Hammad admits to مھتاب احمد being himself, ala "why do you still pursue me here? (external link to this page included). Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we should check the edit history of both the users. Besides, this one article there hardly seems any similarity.--Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 07:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why the article was recognized to be a duplicate of Shah Aqeeq Baba by an administrator above? I've already requested to have the user checked against Hammadsaeed. If I turn out to be wrong, I will be ready to apologize to the accused editor in full. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 19:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Canvas
the article creator, &lrm;, was canvassed by Hammadsaeed on the Sindhi Wikipedia to create this article, see this conversation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So, an SPI investigation is inappropriate? Should I move the case from SPI, to ANI? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * that is a possibility. I do wonder though why you got involved, since his contribution history does not include this page, at least not its current incarnation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They created Shah Yaqeeq Bukhari, which is a near duplicate of Shah Aqeeq Baba. It was created right after the aftermath of the AfD of Shah Aqeeq Baba, and the subsequent sockpuppetry of Hammadsaeed. I wasn't aware of WP:CANVAS, so I figured that مھتاب احمد was simply another meat/sock of Hammadsaeed. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understood me correctly: the creator of Shah Yaqeeq Bukhari (محمد مجیب or Muhammad Mujib) is someone different from the user you pinged in your first post on this talk page (مھتاب احمد or Mahtab Ahmad), hence my confusion as to why the latter instead of the former is discussed in the section above. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Either I made a mistake while copying and pasting the username, as well as neglected to notice the difference altogether. I completely forgot to update the SPI investigation after this was pointed out by another editor. At any rate, I'm going through my edits concerning this discussion, as to correct my mistake, where applicable. I will also apologize the the uninvolved editor, whom I involved. I'm sorry about any confusion I caused by making this mistake. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 21:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)