Misplaced Pages

:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 30 January 2023 (fix again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:00, 30 January 2023 by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) (fix again)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

HaughtonBrit

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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/HaughtonBrit/Archive.


28 January 2023

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Note that MehmoodS has admitted to being a sock of Haughton Brit, a claim he vehemently denied during his July 5 block. 2600:1016:B000:0:0:0:0:0/44 edits: On the page Mahadji Shinde: , , + a few more edits were made just a few days after his August 10 edit on the same page with the IP 50:50.248.64.249, the same IP he used to resubmit his block request on July 9. The geolocation and behavioral patterns match up precisely. Note that this IP range was also used for block evasion when AtmaramU was temporarily blocked for editing warring on the page Vyasa. IP edit: AtmaramU edit: . Other edits by this range (for brevity purposes I will only link one edit per page even though there may be multiple edits made by IP): , , , .

2600:1016:B010:0:0:0:0:0/44 edits: , , , , , , , , , etc. Requesting admins to take a look at the other ranges as well since posting all the edits here would cause it become excessively long.

FedEx IP edit just one day after his July 5 block: . Note that this range 199.82.243.0/24 was used to make other edits such as (Mahadji Shinde), , and similar topics that Haughton Brit used to engage in as well as edit war with Noorullah21 in Sept 2021. , . This range is listed as a confirmed sockpuppet on Haughton Brit's SPI archive page and coincidentally it became active in the topic areas that HB/MehmoodS edit right after his July 5 block.

Editing from a Pennsylvania airport , then a Calgary airport , and Toronto airport . His edit in GTAA is the exact same as MehmoodS' June 9 edit & . Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

New draft

* Master: MehmoodS

  • Sock IP: 50.248.64.249
Fairly self explanatory. He used this IP to resubmit his block request and later to edit pages such as Battle of Rohilla , Talk: Criticism of Sikhism, Maratha Navy , and Mahadji Shinde . Please note two things, on the page Talk:Criticism of Sikhism, the IP 2600:1016:B02D:2B06:B1A9:91C:677C:F0E8 made the same edit as 50.248.64.249 just one hour apart from each other and both removed content from the page . The IPs both geolocate to the same location, and the 2600 IP belongs to the range 2600:1016:b020::/44. This without any shadow of a doubt proves that MehmoodS was evading his block through both 50* and fluctuating IPs belonging to the 2600:1016:b020::/44 range. Please also note that merely by examining the edit history on the page Mahadji Shinde will provide a solid understanding of what IPs Mehmood was using to block evade.

*Master: MehmoodS

  • Sock: Various IPs belonging to the 199.82.243.0/24 range.

MehmoodS made this edit on Jun 29 . IP 199.82.243.101 makes the exact same edit one day after MehmoodS July 5 block . IP makes this edit on Siege of Sirhind, a page MehmoodS extensively edited- MehmoodS also has a tendency to erroneously add "Khalsa" as an adjective to a Sikh congregation similar to the IP. IP makes this edit . MehmoodS has an extremely extensive history of editing Maratha involved conflicts in order to change a "victory" to either a stalemate or defeat. Examples: , , , etc etc. IP removes honorifics of Shivaji , Mehmood has done this hundreds of times: , , + many more. IP also removes content from Mahadji Shinde , a page which 50.248.64.249 (undeniable MehmoodS sock) edited as well . Not to mention all the 199* IPs belong to the range 199.82.243.0/24, the same range is currently listed on the Haughton Brit SPI Archive page . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suthasianhistorian8 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Recent sock/meat IP edits (most recent version)
All this plus the fact that the 2600:1016 range only started becoming active in the topics that MehmoodS edits after his July 5 block, apart from some just a few days after AtmaramU's temporary block: - , & is telling.Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Please also note that until recently the 2600:1016 IPs used to geolocate to Cupertino, California, I suspect this is why the user was more confident in editing with those IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suthasianhistorian8 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

No doubt he used 50.248.64.2491 to evade block, as we can see him using same IP address at his own talk page, after talk page access was revoked. This Ip was active till the end of August. Same topic areas as his other sock MehmoodS Akshaypatill (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bbb23: I am currently restructuring the SPI. Please read the incomplete version and provide your thoughts on whether this is better formatted. Thanks. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Dmries, user MehmoodS most recent edits were on Jan of this year. I am not making this SPI because I intend to revert or edit any particular pages listed within here, but rather because this user is requesting a unblock and CheckUser data has supposedly found no evidence of checkuser block evasion, however there is undeniable evidence that he was editing logged out or through a proxy virtually every month since his block till now. @Bbb23: is it alright if I take a short break and resume this after a couple of hours? I have to attend something else for the time being. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Bbb23, firstly my apologies for changing the header. And yes, I was tracking the 2600:1016 range during November and December as well, and during that time the geolocation provided by Misplaced Pages said that the IPs belong to Cupertino, California, however the WHOIS service as well as other geolocation services offwiki both said the IPs are from Pennsylvania (the IPs that AtmaramU used to block evade on June 23, 2021 also said Cupertino, CA). For some reason, the geolocation has recently reverted to Pennsylvania, I'm assuming due to a network quirk I'm unfamiliar with. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  Additional information needed - This report is the equivalent of WP:TLDR at less structured administrative noticeboards, but at the same time it lacks crucial information. Putting aside how many IPs are listed, both single and ranges, and many of whom have not edited recently, there are almost no diffs of the master or any other named socks. What we need to show block evasion now are paired diffs of recent edits by an IP and an edit by a named account, and we need that for all IPs or ranges that have recent edits. Finally, no check will be run against IPs for privacy reasons, so CU should not have been requested. Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, I was having a hard time following this structure, but I did see, as you did, that those IPs edited last in like August of last year. User:Suthasianhistorian8, is there anything here that is urgent and necessary? Drmies (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Suthasianhistorian8: I started checking the diffs in your "draft", and they have the same problem as before. As I already stated, the diffs of the IPs have to be very recent. I'll wait your response to this and to Drmies's comment, but I am inclined to close this report with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Close it. What is the point here? MehmoodS wasn't even linked here, and was the point to argue they're editing logged-out after their block? There is no evidence of that. User:Suthasianhistorian8, you need a lot more practice writing up these things, and you also need to think about what you are asking for, and what we do here. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: I'm confused. What do you mean by "MehmoodS wasn't even linked here"? BTW, at this point I'm reviewing only "Recent edits logged out" where there are diffs for IPs in the last 90 days and for MehmoodS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • You're confused, Bbb23? "Mehmood" occurs 24 times in this report, but not a single time with user links, and not marked as someone we're supposed to be looking at. Isn't the editor asking us to confirm that Mehmood is evading a block, by providing diffs like this one? What on earth could be the point of us looking at these IPs in relation to an account that was two and a half years ago? And that's why I said that they need more practice. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Drmies, let's say this is a more normal report of socking, and you have a new named account that you claim is a sock. The master has multiple socks. The usual evidence is of similarities between the suspected sock and the master or past socks. It doesn't matter how old the diffs are of the master/past socks. Let's take this one step closer to the reality of what's going on here. The filer, when pushed, provided evidence of IPs making similar edits to MehmoodS by giving diffs of the IPs in the last 90 days and edits by MehmoodS of any age. The purpose of this report is not to justify blocking the IPs but to provide evidence that MehmoodS has evaded their block, which is contrary to what Yamla found, and it was Yamla who instructed the filer to file this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi, everyone. I'll summarize my position here. MehmoodS made an unblock request. I took a look at the checkuser evidence at that time and saw no evidence of recent block evasion. Suthasianhistorian8 claimed to have ironclad evidence that evasion had happened. That could easily trump the checkuser data, so I advised filing an SPI. I'm deliberately keeping this short, but happy to answer questions or go into more detail. I don't claim I'm definitely correct. --Yamla (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Yamla. I'll summarize my position as well. I believe based on the comparison diffs presented by Suthasianhistorian8 in the "Recent..." section (they keep changing the header), particularly those added earlier in the process as I haven't looked at every single one, the behavioral evidence that the IPs and MehmoodS are the same person is sufficiently persuasive that in the normal course of events, the IPs would be blocked for block evasion. In addition, MehmoodS has demonstrated by their own admitted use of IPs that they edit from Pittsburgh, and the IPv6s noted in the diffs geolocate to Pittsburgh (Suthasianhistorian8 says the IPs used to be allocated to Cupertino, California, but I have no idea how they know that or, if so, when that happened). So, without CU evidence, which we normally don't have the benefit of when analyzing IP edits, we would be done unless another administrator or clerk disagreed with my conclusion, particularly if it were one who knew more about this case. Now we come to the CU side, which I can only speak to superficially. MehmoodS has made 5 edits that are not stale. Fatih200, whom I will assume Yamla checked as well for additional data, has made 8 edits. That is not a lot of data to go on. Whether Yamla went further than that in their check I have no way of knowing, but I have confidence in Yamla's abilities as a CU, so I suspect he was as thorough as he could be in these circumstances. At this point, unless there is something new someone has to say, I suppose my position on the matter, which is that MehmoodS should not be unblocked because of block evasion, should go into the mix on their Talk page, and the issue should be discussed there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I can confirm that I indeed looked at Fatih200. I'd like to strongly emphasize Bbb23's point that both accounts combined had only a few recent edits, so there was not a lot to go on. Checkuser data is challenging in cases like this and behavioural evidence needs to be factored in. I'm deliberately trying hard to avoid violating CU privacy policies, but will say it's entirely possible that I may not have found technical CU evidence of block evasion (as in this case), but block evasion may nevertheless have happened. CU isn't a silver bullet. If the consensus is that behavioural evidence indicates block evasion, we obviously should not lift the block. --Yamla (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This report has served its purpose, and I have therefore "moved" the discussion as to whether MehmoodS has evaded their block to their Talk page. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Categories: