Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vincshekhan/Archive

Report date November 27 2009, 22:38 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

Suspected sock-puppeteer both users have created accounts with user names almost identical to the articles they created exclusively. One deleted article Wissam Shekhany (which may be recreated under a different "Wissam Chikahni")  links to Batroumine and shares many similarities with  article (original research mostly)  Eli  +  22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Eli  +


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by Eli  +  22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests
 * There is very little, if any, connection between these two users. They do not appear to have had any contact at all with each other, and as such, I am declining this. Additionally, Wissam Shekhany has never existed. ( X! ·  talk )  · @171  · 03:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * Conclusions
 * Closing per X! NW ( Talk ) 03:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Report date December 2 2009, 15:24 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets

just look at edit history, its enough proof, I find this way of adressing a third person quite peculiar too: "Can you please Ged UK help us to bring it back;" "Why would you Elie delete aricles about lebanese intellectuals ?" Eli +  15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Eli  +


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

has stated on my talk page (currently at User_talk:Ged_UK but will get archived) that they have stopped using Vincshekhan in favour of ALBA-BALAMAND. Contribution history bares this out. Ged UK  10:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * well.. in this case he is totally justified, i guess Eli  +  17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

No action taken. Looks like WP:SOCK has been properly utilized here. MuZemike 19:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

19 May 2010

 * Suspected sockpuppets

same edit patterns which. Rewriting delete content again and again (Wissam Shekhani) Eli  +  13:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Eli  +

repeating edit pattern rewriting already deleted content Wissam_Shekhani Eli  +  13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence submitted by Eli  +


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

This edit is very unusual. wiooiw (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments by other users
 * I didn't even see the contributions by User:Vincshekhan. This is too god damn duckish. wiooiw (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

All accounts indefinitely blocked and tagged. –MuZemike 02:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll note that when the Markshutter account was created, I think WP:SOCK went out the window. It's clear that someone is merely using throwaway accounts in an illegitimate fashion. –MuZemike 02:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Phantomsteve
I was doing a bit of research on (having commented on their talk page about their indef block) when I noticed that the page User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani had recently been edited by an IP.

Between 07:18 and 09:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC), made 23 edits. The other major contributors to this article (as opposed to editors who tagged or removed categories etc) were, and also one edit from  - as well as 6 edits from  last July. The latter IP is also a National Engineering Services and Marketing Company Ltd. (NESMA) IP, as is the current SPI IP.

I am aware of the privacy issues involved, but I have asked for CU involvement because ALBA-BALAMAND protests their innocence with regard to the Markshutter account - and seems to be asking for an investigation to prove their innocence. I feel that this, along with the fact that there has been no definitive investigation.

I am also aware that ALBA-BALAMAND cannot edit this page, but I will be notifying them on their talk page, and offering to copy any statements that they wish to make onto this page on their behalf, so that they have a voice - should they wish to do so. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Further to the above: This edit to Ged UK's talk page is clearly from ALBA-BALAMAND, and is from the IP I reported above. I was going to block the IP for block evasion, but I'm not sure if it's likely to be different at different times - and so causing other innocent parties to be affected. Any advice? --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the IPs contributions, it was clearly still ALBA-BALAMAND's up to 08:52 UTC yesterday since 5 June, so I am going to block the IP for 1 week - if anyone think that's wrong, just let me know! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe not... when I went to do so, I see FisherQueen did that yesterday! --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at the different accounts, this is what I notice:
 * : 74 edits + 1 deleted edit:
 * 35 edits: User talk:ALBA-BALAMAND (+ 1 deleted edit)
 * 25 edits: Batroumine
 * 10 edits: User talk:Ged UK
 * 2 edits: User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani
 * 1 edit : Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wissam Shekhani
 * 1 edit : User talk:Nihonjoe
 * All of this user's edits are Wissam Shekhani-related, Batroumine-related or about their block
 * : 58 edits + 3 deleted edits:
 * 57 edits: User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani
 * 3 edits: [[File:QISARYA EXODUS by Wissam Shekhani.jpg]] (deleted)
 * 1 edit : Category talk:Wikipedia
 * All of this user's edits are Wissam Shekhani-related. Also, ALBA-BALAMAND has admitted that this was his account.
 * : 9 edits + 15 deleted edits:
 * 15 edits: Wissam Shekhani (deleted)
 * 4 edits: User talk:Elie plus
 * 2 edits: Mikha'il Na'ima
 * 1 edit : User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani
 * 1 edit : Batroumine
 * 1 edit : Dimension
 * With the exception of the edits to Mikha'il Na'ima and Dimension, all of this user's edits are Wissam Shekhani-related (87.5%)
 * : 10 edits (0 deleted edits)
 * 6 edits: User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani
 * 3 edits: Batroumine
 * 1 edit : User talk:ALBA-BALAMAND
 * All of this user's edits are Wissam Shekhani-related or Batroumine-related
 * : 40 edits (0 deleted edits)
 * 23 edits: User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani
 * 6 edits: User talk:Ged UK
 * 4 edits: Index of Lebanon-related articles (1 about Batroumine)
 * 3 edits: User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards
 * 2 edits: Batroumine
 * 1 edit : User talk:ALBA-BALAMAND
 * 1 edit : Requested articles/Biographies
 * With the exception of 3 of the edits to 'Index', all of this user's edits are Wissam Shekhani- or ALBA-related (92.5%)


 * All the accounts together have made 192 edits (+ 19 deleted edits), with all bar 6 being about Shekhani, Alba or Batroumine (97.16%)


 * Looking at the articles above, I noticed:
 * Batroumine: the users above made 57 of the 71 total edits (80.28%)
 * User:ALBA-BALAMAND/Wissam Shekhani: the users above made 89 of the 124 total edits (71.77%)
 * Wissam Shekhani: Markshutter made 15 of the 17 total edits (88.24%)


 * For all three of these articles, they have made 161 edits out of the 212 total edits (75.94%)


 * My thoughts: I would say that from this analysis, the odds that these users are not the same person (or group of people, as ALBA-BALAMAND admitted they were) are so low as to be non-existent. I see no reason to believe ALBA-BALAMAND when they say that the Markshutter account is not the same person. With that in mind, I would suggest that we close this SPI since they are all indef blocked - if/when ALBA-BALAMAND asks about the Standard Offer in 6 month's time, I will oppose that, as I feel that the evidence is sufficient to show that ALBA-BALAMAND and Markshutter are the same user. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 16:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Requested by --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Every major editor here was blocked so no checkuser is needed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It might still be appropriate to discuss the validity of those sock blocks, since that's what's being disputed. Was the behavioral evidence strong enough to maintain this block, with the strong objection raised now? Could we just AGF unblock, with some strong advice about the Wissam Shekhani article this all seems to be focused on? Amalthea  21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this involve input from myself? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Phantomsteve has looked into it himself now, so I'm fine with closing it. Amalthea  10:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * - CU is not used to "prove innocence", and since all the accounts are blocked, there's no check left to be done here. T. Canens (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The blocks look quite valid to me, and the evidence looks quite convincing. As pointed out in the previous SPI, this is, let's just say, unusual. T. Canens (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)