Talk:Mubin Shaikh

Was he paid by CSIS?

The July 15 CBC article is not clear on whether he was a PAID informant. - Mcasey666 00:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Yes, I was a paid agent. MS

eMail address

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)

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.61.77 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 

Informant/Agent

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)

Agent is a particular status, versus informant (former requiring court testimony, latter not) MS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.61.77 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Details

• He says he drove the group around in his (wired) van[1], did none of the others have a driversLicense/car? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Revert edits by SHaikh

I'm sorry to be such a stickler, but I'm reverting Shaikh's most recent edits. You changed "several times he phoned an ambulance to attend to him after an overdose" to "once he phoned an ambulance to attend to him after an accelerated heart rate", even though the cited MacLeans article quotes you saying "There were a couple of times...". Now, it's possibly you were misquoted, or that the reporter is trying to smear you - but ultimately we have to assume that MacLeans magazine is less likely to be subjective than you are yourself - and that you did indeed tell them it happened "a couple of times". You also removed the fact that your rehabilitation costs were covered by the RCMP - even though it is a referenced fact. Again, while I know the media is certainly capable of error - you can understand why we can't accept the subject of an article changing facts without evidence. You added the statement "This would leave intact the evidence obtained while working however." which I'm not sure I understand, while working where? And who says it would remain intact? (It's the subject of a publication ban, I know - but without revealing what evidence, there should still be a lawyer referenced explaining why "evidence" will remain admissable). You also changed the verbatim quote of Moon in his article, despite it being taken straight from this National Post story. You simply cannot rewrite past quotes, especially ones that aren't even your own, to fit your view of the facts. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No wonder Wikipedia is such a poor source: the simple fact that something has been verbalized or written is enough for you to cite as some kind of fact. Rather than it simply being my view of things - I have first hand information which you do not - the publication ban makes it harder for me to prove my point however. Looking forward to seeing your changes when these issues are brought up in court. Validation is one helluva feeling.

As to your methodology: you think MacLeans would be less likely to be subjective than me?! They have a vested interest in putting forward a "story" whereas I do not. They did not even confirm from the RCMP about paid rehab visits (there were zero), nor did you confirm with Shaukat Sheri's lawyers about the point of my testimony being disputed at appeal - you simply regurtitate unconfirmed information. I have already had this material tested in the preliminary hearings so I can certainly wait until you see for yourself.

Peace.

eMailed Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-Promotional

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You violated the 3RR and have been warned accordingly.Scott 110 (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Your interpretation is borderline of a personal attack.Scott 110 (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see vandalism, rather a content dispute. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

The numerous photos of the subject of this article including close-ups and action poses clearly support the self-promotional lean... It's almost as though he wrote it himself! Supertouch (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

personal life

I reverted an excision by someone who asserted his tattoos were irrelevant. I disagree. His character and thus his credibility are being questioned. Tattoos and self-inflicted injuries are clues to his character.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was I who removed them. Frankly, I don't see the relevance - particularly with respect to the tattoos. However, if you feel there is relevance, then context must be provided (in the article, not here). If you think his having tatoos or self inflicted injuries relates in some ways to his case, etc - then point it out explicitly. Because many (including myself) will see it as a non-sequitur. I'll wait a few days and if no one provides the context, then I'll remove it again. Beetle B. (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The "context" can't be extrapolated in the main article itself, as it would constitute OR -- but I think things like a shield with the crescent of Islam speak for themself, that he does style himself as a defender of the faith. Go read a biography on Johnny Depp, notice how we mention his tattoos? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 09:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First, the appearance of such content in Johnny Depp's article in no way justifies anything. Second, context is provided in Depp's article. Third, the conclusion of himself as "defender of the faith" from the tattoos is tenuous (as the article currently stands). There are stronger signs of both his religiosity and unreligiosity (drugs, etc) in the article. Self inflicted wounds could be signs of a lot of things - they're generally forbidden in Islam as well as most religions.

Looking at the references provided (after writing the above paragraph), I see that one of them made the link between that tattoo and his faith. I'd rather the article state it as coming from the perspective of the reference - rather than throwing it in as a random confusing detail. The other reference (Frontline) seems to give some of the context for the self-inflicted burns, which I think should be incorporated into the article. Maybe I'll do it one of these days.

I guess for now I'll "withdraw" the suggestion that those pieces of information be removed. But I think the article needs serious revamping - it's too much random and seemingly disconnected stuff. Maybe I'll do it one of these days. Beetle B. (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

HA! I tried revamping this article but guys like Sherurcij act as if it is his/her's and defend it vigorously against "vandalism". I am totally in favour for a revamp, based on a number of points, as mentioned in the talk above. Scott 110 (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Scott, as long as your idea of a "revamp" is to vandalise the article by removing every section except one which you think should receive sole prominence in relating the biography of a notable individual, it will be reverted. That's not ownership, that's vigilence against revisionism.

Beetle, I would love to see improvements made to the article - especially if there is information out there that is not yet added to the article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Who are you to decide that my edits are "revisionism"? Obviously the block still hasn't changed your thinking that a content dispute does not constitute vandalism. Moreso you still haven't given a valid reason as to why we need those two pictures in the article, do we really need to see Mubin's legs, or is that your personal preference? Scott 110 (talk) 06:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlaced combat boots, cargo pants, dishdasha, reflective shades and a hoodie - I'd say his style of outfit is indicative of a certain image he portrays. It's a public domain image, so there's no reason not to use it, other than your claims that the image somehow "promotes" Shaikh, which isn't entirely clear. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then as per your line of reasoning we don't need the second picture of only his upper body to further illustrate the "image he portays" - seeing as how it does not show his combat boots, cargo pants and hoodie being worn - correct? Scott 110 (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Profile images are typically just a bust, shoulders-up. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Criminal charges section has been removed because it has absolutely no connection the t18 case - the very reason why this page has been created. drug charges ARE related so they must stay. - HM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.183.131 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

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).

And where are these facts from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistedcables (talk • contribs) 20:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Got the facts from his uncle Zahir whom i work with.

LOL...original research?! Is that what making things up is called on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.185.240 (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Too many pictures?

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)

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)

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)

Most recent changes by Shaikh

I have removed a smattering of sentences which were appended to the end of paragraphs saying "but Shaikh was vindicated of any wrongdoing". It is true and notable, and already mentioned twice in the article, there is no reason to give WP:UNDUE weight to the subject by repeating it ad nauseum. Since Shaikh disputed that "make concessions to stem the negative attention he had brought to the investigation" was accurate to the source provided, I changed to the exact details of "promised to stay off drugs and halt media interviews". I also changed the legalese-creep where he aggravated the term "friends planning a trip" to "suspects planning a trip" as I feel it is an unencyclopaedic tone. The phrase "Judge Sproat in his ruling rejected the assertion he was motivated by money but rather, a sense of civic obligation." may be re-instated int he article, we just need a citation for it if possible, then we'll put it back in. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

MUBIN SHAIKH:

YET you put the same accusation TWICE - once in the intro and once later on but only ONE counter to that obviously bias comment is warranted? Re made concessions - the Macleans articles DOES NOT mention this: Sherurcij is totally creating it out is HIS own mind. RE several FRIENDS: gives the impression they were my friends - the commonly used term is either ACCUSEDS or SUSPECTS not friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.7.114 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The "accusation" is only mentioned once so far as I can see, Edney's quote does not claim you are guilty of legal entrapment, it is merely highlight the defence lawyers' portrayal of you. It doesn't warrant yet another "but Shaikh is totally innocent", that is already in the introduction to the article. Per the term "friends", it is a direct quote from the FRONTLINE story, which says "he seemed to become the center of a growing circle of friends". Take up your issue with PBS, not the messengers who simply relate the facts others print. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greetings! The contributions I make are sometimes challenged by GIs, or their relatives, who offer versions at odds with what our published sources say. Sometimes it is difficult to explain to those GIs why we have to use published sources -- even when we agree with those GIs that those published sources are wrong, and we believe the GI's personal account. The GI's account is not verifiable.

Sherurcij, and all other contributors to this article, are supposed to cite, paraphrase, quote and summarize in a fair way. It is pretty uncommon for the subjects of articles to play much of an active role in those bio articles. I think it is difficult for people to be neutral about their own articles. I think it is possible however, with enough effort.

I am a little unclear on your exact concerns. I don't always agree with Sherurcij. But I am confident he makes an effort to be fair.

I read the last dozen or so revisions to the article and to the talk page. But I would appreciate it if you spelled out your concern(s) here. Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

WRT to this edit

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)

Further edits by Shaikh

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)

Questionable source "thefacesbehind.net"

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)

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)

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)

New section

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)

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)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

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:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. 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)

Ahmadi?

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