Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Rashid Ghafoor

Rashid Ghafoor ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

25 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

So far I have been able to identify these four recently created accounts which have some sort of similar editing pattern. User:Adeel Safi and User:Rashid Ghafoor has created BLP's on non-notable Pakistani bureaucrats (all Secretary to the Government of Pakistan) and both cited same type of unreliable sources. BLP's created by both users contain original research and puffery, most of which have been removed by @ JesseRafe:. User:Cabsec15 and User:Elchapo07 made edits to page created by User:Rashid Ghafoor and User:Adeel_Safi with a lookalike pattern. At Least 2 accounts were created in November 2017. One in October 2017 and one in January this year so all are newbies.

All four accounts took interest in Federal Secretary (Pakistan) which was created by User:Rashid Ghafoor, Both User:Rashid Ghafoor and Adeel Safi have been engaged in renaming of the page. Copyvio Photo of Younus Dagha and Mian Asad Hayauddin was uploaded on Commons by User:Cabsec15 whereas the both pages was created and expanded by User:Adeel Safi. Similarly copyvio photo of Fawad Hasan Fawad was uploaded by User:Elchapo07 whereas the page was created by User:Adeel Safi. Copyvio photo of Roshan Ali Shaikh was uploaded by User:Rashid Ghafoor whereas pg was created by User:Adeel Safi. Copyvio photo of Raja Sikandar Sultan and Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) was uploaded by User:Cabsec15 while the both pages was created by User:Rashid Ghafoor. I think these are enough evidence to demonstrate all accounts belongs to same. -- Saqib ( talk) 12:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
:*Comment - I was suspicious of Adeel Safi and Rashid Ghafoor at first, but I think they've made on the whole good edits and have been communicable and reformative when I point out errors or violations of policy. Cabsec and Elchapo, however, have a different pattern than the first two (who also, I believe may have undid each other's edits, so either they're on some mastermind level, or that shows their non-relation), and while they don't edit in the exact same manner, both Cabsec and Elchapo edit poorly and don't respond to specific critiques and undos, and I wouldn't be suprised if they were related. I'd support a CU on them all to at least clear the air on the matter. However, I have to disagree with the charge of non-notability on these articles. They're high-level national bureaucrats in a large and important country of which we have clear under-representation on Wikipedia. We have articles on much less significant bureaucrats on the state/region/province and city/county level for other Anglophone countries, both because we have more editors from there and more sources printed from what we know to be RSs because more editors are from there, etc etc. I think that these BLPs are at the level of what would be in the US between Cabinet-level positions or agency heads of the executive administrative agencies, positions that would never be doubted as notable in and of themselves. I myself know little about Pakistan's government structure, but welcome its expansion and have put several "globalize" etc tags on the articles as they're a little opaque for me, but would like to see them remain regardless of the outcome of the SPI. (I only became involved as I watch the Kennedy School's page for just this sort of spurious or peacocking addition of alumni). JesseRafe ( talk) 15:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@ JesseRafe: I still think most of the BLP's created on federal secrateries by Adeel Safi are on non-notable persons. You said " They're high-level national bureaucrats in a large and important country of which we have clear under-representation on Wikipedia." I agree that Pakistan is under-represented here but I believe India's coverage on Wikipedia is much better than of Pakistan but still only a couple of current Secretaries to Government of India have their own standalone BLP's which I believe due to reason that merely being a federal secretary does not makes one notable enough to warrant an entry on WP. See: Secretary_to_Government_of_India#List_of_current_Secretaries_to_Government_of_India. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
There's just as much opacity to the general reader and puffery (I personally abhor seeing "Dr." within the wikilink) on that article, more over about 15 of them do have articles and I don't think 15 qualifies as just "only a couple". I don't know how many Federal Secretaries Pakistan has, but surely articles on 6 or 7 are not overdoing it. JesseRafe ( talk) 15:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
For the record, federal secretary post in Pakistan is not near a Cabinet-level positions. I have yet to check how many federal secretaries we have got. -- Saqib ( talk) 16:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
OK, as I said, it was unclear what the heck it is, whether it's a role, a title, or a rank. Also, I said "between Cabinet-level and head of a department (US)", which they seem to by definition be heads of a department or ministry (Pakistan). I'd think any head of a national department or ministry in the US, UK, Canada, or Australia would automatically be notable enough for an article without consulting a list. Comity should be extended here. JesseRafe ( talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
@ JesseRafe and Saqib: Hello, I came here lurking through the article Federal Secretary (Pakistan) (I have it on my watchlist). Firstly sorry for having 'Dr.' within the wikiliniks of Secy.s to GoI, I would rectify this as soon as I get the chance. As far as power/role of Secy.s go, I think it's well defined on Secretary to Government of India, I don't know about Pakistan though, but I would assume that there won't be much of a difference because of the common heritage between India and Pakistan. Secondly, there are more than 15 articles of Secy.s to GoI (see: Category: Indian civil servants in general and Category: Indian Administrative Service officers in particular), and I am working on creating more articles, it's just that I don't publish a page before it has a certain no. of references in reliable sources, but I'd estimate that in the coming days I would publish 5-6 articles of incumbent Secy.s to GoI.
PS: I too would endorse a CU on all of the aforementioned accounts/IPs.
PPS: For a more 'globalized' version, check out Permanent Secretary, from which I presume Secretary to Government of India and Federal Secretary (Pakistan) were derived, after India's freedom and partition.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 16:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks! To the point that even if the editors are SPs, the BLPs' existence are not ipso facto problematic, as all but 3 of those 27 UK Permanent Secretaries have articles. Re: the Dr./Sir/Madame etc, I didn't remove them when I had previously edited the list of Indian secretaries because I don't know your ENGVAR styleguides (and didn't care to check), which is why I said I personally abhor them. They always look like puffery to me whenever I see titles before a name or letters after a name when just the name should suffice, whether piped in a WL or bold in the article lede. Again, don't know if that's more accepted in either a Commonwealth or South Asian styling, but the US ENGVAR articles try to avoid it. JesseRafe ( talk) 17:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 January 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

This account created after 2/3 days the master account got blocked. Created userpage in a very similar way to his previous socks.. If we compare the edit summaries, there are exactly the same. Discussing the changes via edit summaries. [1], [2] and "adding citiations and references to remove tags" [3] [4]. The sock is editing the very same BLPs which was created or written by socks such as Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat). would sign the comments on talk page in a similar way. [5] [6]. and write "thank you" without a space [7] [8] -- Saqib ( talk) 13:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Deleted lines from his userpage after he noticed this investigation. [9]. -- Saqib ( talk) 14:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Comment ——— I fully endorse a CU on SohailTanveer91 and an indef block if they are found to be sockpuppet, however, I think they should me made aware of WP: Standard offer this time around, as there are very few editors contributing to Pakistan-related topics as it is, losing another one may be a blow to the project.
    Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 15:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - I agree with SshibumXZ. This is an obvious duck, but it's unclear why on the first SPI the user felt the need to sock at all, maybe they were that scared because they thought their subjects would fail notability so wanted to seem more notable with more users editing? If you look at those articles' histories, the multiple accounts weren't used to dodge 3RR and none of them were blocked until the SPI. The articles added were, for the most part, notable as they're BLPs on heads of national agencies/departments/ministries or heads of other subnational units which pass notability on their face. We should allow the user a chance to prove that they understand the rules now (assuming they're not currently socking), and contribute meaningfully to an area we have little depth or breadth. They are, undoubtedly, many editors watching this user's pages and the subjects of interest to him, so any further impropriety will likely be noticed swiftly. JesseRafe ( talk) 16:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 Confirmed + Elpha17 ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki).  Blocked and tagged. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

13 February 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

this account emerged after the blocking of master accounts and socks in late January 2018. the edits made to Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) by this user made me suspicious because the editing pattern was similar to those of blocked socks.. the blocked socks has repeatedly tried to removed the notablity tag from the said BLP and so this user as can be seen here.

Also need to check listed IPs who have been engaged in removing notability tag.. -- Saqib ( talk) 09:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

  • Comment - Regent007 is obviously the same user, and I told him as an IP to register a new account and just stop sock-puppeting. It doesn't look like the other account is very active. I think this situation should just be monitored and we shouldn't keep punishing the same user for a mistake he already made, especially given his editing interest is in an area we are underserved. I watch a lot of these Pakistan bureaucracy pages now, and the user has come a long way since he first began editing, much fewer instances of weasel words, formatting issues, and a lesser propensity to undo/revert. He used several IPs to edit his famous pages and on my Talk page and I encouraged him to register a new account, I wouldn't want him to be punished for my suggestion and lose faith in Wikipedia. Maybe he can make a declaration on his user page? JesseRafe ( talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
But the user is repeatedly removing tags from BLPs, which I consider disruptive editing. Other than the BLP I mentioned above, see this and this and who knows many more. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
To my knowledge he stopped when I finally imparted on him that an impartial editor not previously involved should be the one to do it. At least on Rizwan, I'm not watching every page, but those two diffs are from a week and longer ago. The explanation came on Feb 8, his seemingly last removal of such a tag came on Feb 7. JesseRafe ( talk) 15:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Comment I also saw that you restored the tag, which was rightfully removed by GoingBatty here, the article easily passes notability, I reverted your re-addition. JesseRafe ( talk) 15:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Some tags are obviously warranted, see Talk:Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat)#COI. -- Saqib ( talk) 15:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I share JesseRafe's view of the situation. It was suggested the user register a new account, so they did; blocking someone for following that instruction is not in the spirit of the blocking policy. The tagging (or not) of the article is outside the scope of this sockpuppet investigation page. -- Deskana ( talk) 11:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply

06 August 2018

Suspected sockpuppets

On 4 August 2018, Regent007 edited Riz Ahmed, replacing {{Other people||Rizwan Ahmed (disambiguation){{!}}Rizwan Ahmed}} with {{Distinguish|Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat)}} at the top of the article ( diff). On 5 August 2018, I reverted Regent007's edit. On 6 August 2018, Karjabhai appeared from nowhere and restored Regent007's edit ( diff). Also, with that edit, Karjabhai added a bare URL and {{Cleanup bare URLs}} to the article at the same time; Regent007 edited other articles in the same way ( diff, diff). Looking at Regent007's talk page, I suspect that it's not the first time the user has abused multiple accounts. I am requesting checkuser to find any other sleeper accounts. 153.137.126.64 ( talk) 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

 moved Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 17:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Salvidrim: can you merge this investigation with WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rashid Ghafoor, Regent007 is a sockpuppet of Rashid Ghafoor, but was forgiven in a sockpuppet investigation, because @ JesseRafe: and I, my-self, asked for him to be given a second chance; see, how that worked out, heh.
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 20:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC); edited 20:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
As Bbb23 said, I'm not an SPI Clerk currently. Earlier I was just patrolling the "semi-protected edit requests" backlog. :) Ben · Salvidrim!  ✉ 20:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Salvidrim: oh, ok. Thanks anyway!
Regards, SshibumXZ ( Talk) ( Contributions). 20:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC); edited 20:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

24 August 2019

Suspected sockpuppets

On Riz Ahmed, the Pakistani IP user 103.228.159.85 added {{Cleanup bare URLs}}, replaced {{Other people|Rizwan Ahmed}} with {{for|the Pakistani official|Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat)}}, and replaced "Riz Ahmed" with "Rizwan Ahmed". Rashid Ghafoor's previous sockpuppets such as Regent007 ( talk · contribs) and Karjabhai ( talk · contribs) edited the same article in the same way. Compare diff1, diff2, and diff3.

Furthermore, multiple Pakistani IPs edited Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) in the same way, adding bare URL(s) and {{Cleanup bare URLs}} at the same time. Some of their edits have been already reverted by other users, but these IPs currently keep restoring the content. Compare diff4, diff5, diff6, diff7, diff8, diff9, diff10, diff11, diff12, diff13, diff14, diff15, diff16, diff17, diff18, diff19, diff20, and diff21.

I'm not sure if the article(s) should be semi-protected and if (range)blocks work in this case. Either way, I would like to require some sort of administrator action. 153.221.72.33 ( talk) 06:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 September 2019

Suspected sockpuppets


There have been persistent block-evading edits on Pakistan-related articles such as Rizwan Ahmed (bureaucrat) and Riz Ahmed. The edits by 103.228.156.0/22 and 39.44.0.0/16 are similar to the ones by Regent007 ( talk · contribs) and Karjabhai ( talk · contribs), both of which are Rashid Ghafoor's sockpuppets. For example, they added {{ Cleanup bare URLs}} and bare URLs to an article at the same time. Compare diff: diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4. 61.207.74.156 ( talk) 06:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • information Administrator note These IP ranges are far too large to investigate properly or block for something as tenuous as "editing in the same subject area". Marking for closure. – Darkwind ( talk) 07:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rashid_Ghafoor/Archive&oldid=1037783267"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE