Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samee/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Samee became active on 11 November 2017 after being inactive for a long time and Ma'az was created on 8 November 2017.

When David.moreno72 declined AFC of Ma'az regarding Draft:Arif Butt, it was soon accepted by Samee.

David.moreno72 and Theroadislong declined AFC of Ma'az about Draft:Customs Public School. But Samee accepted it.

Samee has been accepting all articles of Ma'az from WP:AFC.

Samee defended the article Muslim Model High School, Lahore in AFD because the article was created by Ma'az.

Defended creation of Customs Public School on AfD and the article was created by Ma'az.

Botched a socking attempt then reverted himself on User talk:Koavf.

Created Articles for deletion/Ian Chauhan and after 18 minutes Samee closed the AfD as redirect. Same happened on other AfDs such as: He sure attempted to WP:GAME on one AfD but his final vote was same as Samee.

It took both of them only 9 minutes to save the deletion on Articles for deletion/Qamar House despite the AfD was created 30 hours ago.

Ma'az added sources on Nusaybah bint Ka'ab and then Samee removes the notability tag under 5 minutes.

Adds himself on WikiProject Pakistan/Members.

Voted keep on Articles for deletion/List of Christian Nobel laureates (4th nomination).

Edit warring on Paris, despite never editing the article before.

Moved Draft:Al-Iqtisad fi al-i'tiqad to The Moderation in Belief in just 1 minute after Ma'az's edit.

Samee has made 101 edits on and Ma'az has made 68 edits on WikiProject Pakistan/List of Pakistani Wikipedians by number of edits, while others have hardly ever edited it.

First person to vote dele on Articles for deletion/Jimmy Attre was Samee, and nomination was created by Ma'az.

Both have over 300 edits on Simple Wikipedia.

Made a small vote on two same image deletion discussions in 24 hours.

Both reverted AC/DS alert notification from Mblaze lightning by alleging him of misconduct.

Both were making personal attacks or casting WP:ASPERSIONS on an WP:ARE report that had to do nothing with these two users.

Both voted keep on Articles for deletion/Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan

Both are "native speaker of Western Punjabi", per their userpage. Raymond3023 (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

These CU results sounds like one of other recent SPI concerning this same subject, where the sock was blocked for making same edits while only sharing same geolocation as the sock master. This case also involves same elements but higher level of violation.

Under 4 minutes both accounts made their keep vote! on Articles for deletion/UrduPoint.

Also under 4 minutes both accounts made their keep vote! in this controversial AFD: Articles for deletion/Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction.

Both left barnstar on the talk page of the same user under 13 hours.

Both voted keep on Articles for deletion/Muslim Model High School, Lahore.

Also Articles for deletion/Ahmed Raza Khan (Pakistan).

Ma'az created AfD for Articles for deletion/Ali Tauqeer Sheikh and Samee was the first one to vote delete.

Created a deletion nomination for Articles for deletion/Manzoor Pashteen and Ma'az voted for redirect ] after Samee failed to convince others for deletion.

Both voted keep on Articles for deletion/Takht-e-Sulaiman.

They both say same things:-


 * "Thank you for your kind gesture"
 * "the article is as notable as" on same WP:AFD
 * "references to establish notability"
 * Same rationale on the same AfD:-
 * "If similar pages like ISI activities in India can survive, then what's wrong with this page?"
 * "article is as notable as other related articles like Inter-Services Intelligence activities in India etc."

Samee has used talk page of Ma'az like that's his own talk page. For example read this, where other user told Samee that "You also should not use other’s talk pages to talk to other people, other than the owner of the user talk." Something that a person would do only with their alternative account.

Botched another socking attempt:
 * Ma'az told Saqib that, "You never patronized me before for nominating any article (including those articles where you yourself contributed)".
 * Saqib replied him: "I don't think I have ever contributed to an article - which you under your current account - nominated for deletion. Have you been using another account in the past?"
 * Clearly, Ma'az was remembering these nominations that he made with Samee, and Saqib was involved in those.

One more editor, Störm, asked Ma'az to reveal his past accounts. Ma'az never responded to the second request.

Both accounts had their names changed.

Both are using same archive bot and archive boxes.

They both left barnstars for each other.

Conclusion: You are not allowed to recruit people and at least not for your votestacking, personal attacks, edit warring, and few other serious violations of multiple accounts. Also given the suspicious timings of both accounts, it is clear that Samee became active only after Ma'az saw decline of every AFC he submitted and then both accounts extended their violation of sock puppetry by participating in many same pages in no time. These two accounts clearly sound like one person, and even if this is a clear case of WP:MEAT, still I have no doubt there has been high level of deliberate violation of sock puppetry. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also this notification looks suspicious, because these two accounts reach everywhere else under a couple of minutes without ever notifying each other. But why Samee has to notify Ma'az about this SPI? I have seen socks doing the same thing. I could understand if two accounts are operated by two people close to each other in violation of WP:MEAT but now I am sure that there is one person involved, who often tries to pretend that there are two people. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''


 * It’s appalling the report was filed and CheckUser was done much to my ignorance. The cherry-picked ‘evidence’ presented is bogus in its entirety and unsubstantiated. It was apparently filed after the report at the Arbitration Enforcement was thwarted. The user who themselves passed a ‘conclusion’ has ample history of sock puppetry. The report makes it seem like every user editing Pakistan-related articles is a sock. None of the accused were informed purposefully and presenting further ‘evidence’ after the CheckUser was done, shows their desperation to get me blocked. For sure, this report is nothing short of bad faith, witch-hunting, and deserves a boomerang.  samee  talk 19:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are trying to make up fairy tales and by doing that you have made this case stronger. No one is obliged to notify you and usually socks say they had to be notified. There has been no "arbitration report" against you nor I have filed any or participated in any such report where you were involved. You also know that I have never engaged in sock puppetry (you had such spurious block for sock puppetry before too). Large amount of evidence above is unrelated to Pakistani related articles, and it is also clear that you have recruited someone to edit Wikipedia for you. A block is necessary because we can't allow others to recruit meat puppets from their own place or anywhere. Your justification for your big time sock puppetry is unconvincing. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * These’re only your imaginations and your intentions are also very clear. I understand no one is obliged to notify and I did not ask either why were I not informed. The arbitration report, I referred, is the one you presented above as an ‘evidence’, even your own statement of our uninvolved history is implicitly expressing many things. I need not give you justifications, in particular. I have had no interaction with you in past, which makes your motives questionable.  samee  talk 05:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You mentioned two times in your above comment that we had to notify you. That arbitration report is one of the many examples where you engaged in such violation of multiple accounts. We have interacted before and evidently you editing the pages where you and Ma'az reached much later and I reached before. You can claim that you did nothing wrong, but let's hope we will abide by policies that clearly prohibit use of two accounts coming from same geolocation and using Wikipedia only when they have to work in tandem to publish specific non-notable articles, carry out personal attacks, edit war, votestacking, etc. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think this case is most likely a revenge and an attack after my keep vote in the article Research and Analysis activities in Pakistan and also after my comments at ABE recently. I reject all these false allegations.   M A A Z     T A L K   13:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Even your modus operandi of assuming bad faith and alleging others of ulterior motives is same as Samee. I hear a WP:DUCK. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is obvious who is assuming good faith and who is assuming bad faith here. If you hear WP:DUCK, then it is probably Tinnitus.   M A A Z     T A L K   15:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is indeed obvious because I am only helping Wikipedia by revealing your sock puppetry. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, just wait for the closing results then. Soon, you will find out.   M A A Z     T A L K   02:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure, what is the fight here after CU results came out to be Unlikely, why is the filer displaying a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of being adamant that these two are the same folks. The evidence he presented is completely coincidential. Any two users can have edits to the same pages, it's not a big deal, what matters here is the CU results. There has been cases in the past where there was a lot more WP:DUCK present than this but CU results were considered paramount and the case was closed without any blocks. I suggest this case be closed before it turns into a bigger storm than it is.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 15:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why you are coming in defense of these two when CU has already said that they come from same geolocation and socking is possible? You cant make meaning of this SPI by comparing it with your firovolous SPI. Thus your misrepresentation is unhelpful. I agree that this should be closed and both these accounts should be blocked for their mass sock puppetry since Wikipedia can't overturn prohibition on meat/sock puppetry for these two.Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, anyone can edit any area of the site. I do not need yours or anyone's permission to comment anywhere on this site. I monitor certain pages and areas of this site and can jump in in anything of my interest anytime. You are displaying a WP:OWNERSHIP by objecting to my editing. By calling my SPI frivolous, you are making yours even more frivolous as it does not have much of a behavioral evidence, except these two edited same pages / spaces and I am not trying to defend anyone rather expressing my neutral opinion after seeing your purported evidence.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 22:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your SPI was clearly firovolous with common similarities like claims of tag teaming, welcoming users, etc. something that everyone does. But here we are having one person who operates two accounts and started editing Wikipedia on same day with one account becoming active only to accept rejected articles of other one. Same person and both accounts sharing same location. They have not just edited same pages but they have done a lot more and by ignoring that and uselessly throwing misleading comments to defend their sock puppetry, you are only proving that evidence is strong and they should be blocked. Otherwise they don't need your unhelpful comments. Raymond3023 (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My SPI takes into account the editing and conversing similarities which is hard for some people to change and those users were not blocked based on behavior. Compared to that your evidence is based on coincidential editing of the same pages.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 14:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Both users have already revealed on their user pages that they are from Punjab, Pakistan. Ma'az has put Lahore as his city. Samee hasn't but may have inadvertently revealed it somewhere else. So, similar geo location means nothing. The technical differences show they are separate people and that is more important, everything else is coincidence.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 02:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Technical evidence show that they are two accounts editing from same location and probably evading CU by using a different device which is actually easy. While behavioral evidence show that there has been high level of deliberate violation of multiple accounts, given the timeline of account activities, same edit warring, same battles, same votes, use of same phrases and everything else. Raymond3023 (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment There are basic flaws in this report, considering timeline and editing patterns per SheriffIsInTown. Here for instance, Ma'az edited a talk page, whereas here, Samee was editing elsewhere. Same minute, same day. Other comparisons: 9:37, 1 March (Ma'az, Samee); 10:08, 5 March: (Ma'az, Samee) etc. Technically impossible and far-fetched, to say the least.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I'm going to go with here. Geolocation is similar, but the technical differences are not; while it's possible there's some hijinks going on, it would require a lot of work to do it. That said, the behavior requires some explanation from these two. Katietalk 15:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Closing. Insufficient evidence. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)