Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.19.14.210/Archive

19 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




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

Until an edit dispute between multiple IP addresses and autoconfirmed editors erupted last week, the article Steve Beren had received just 5 pages views, on average, per week. It had not been edited since 2009 by anyone other than an IP editor, sock-blocked account, or bot. Then, following a substantial rewrite of the article to remove serious WP:AUTOBIO issues, IP editor 24.19.14.210 almost immediately became active to make blanket rollbacks. Within the space of a few hours, 63.226.205.112 "took over" making these rollbacks (both addresses geolocate to Seattle, home of the bio's subject). Each of these IP addresses has alternated making edits and commenting on Talk within a few hours of each other, with highly coordinated comments that share many structural similarities (neither editor signs his comments, neither editor properly threads his comments, both take positions using similar wording, etc.). Finally, both addresses only have an edit history of Steve Beren - neither having edited any other article.

To underscore this as a case of sockpuppetry, 24.19.14.210 is presenting himself as a different person from 63.226.205.112 through Talk comments such as "on both sides, this is an honest disagreement," etc. I believe a 60-day block of both IP addresses would be appropriate. BlueSalix (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly the same guy, but I'm not sure this is technically sock puppetry as he doesn't appear to be jumping IPs to evade block or something similar. I think he may have WP:3RRed though . NickCT (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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
[from Steve Beren] There is honest disagreement on both sides. I am not trying to hide my identity. If I have not properly coded the comments to indicate who I am, that is for lack of knowledge, not any bad intent. I think the prior version is more accurate, but recognize the prerogatives of the Wikipedia community. I have read some of the guidelines and upon finding information relevant to my situation, I wrote to info-en-q@wikimedia.org - I identified myself and asked for intervention, review, and a fair outcome. [from Steve Beren]
 * This is the first time you've identified the two IP addresses as being operated by the subject of the biography (Steve Beren). In the Talk page, in fact, you repeatedly refer to Steve Beren in the third person, which would lead one to believe you were trying to mask your identity. So, if you are indeed Steve Beren (which, of course, I have no way of knowing) it appears we have a situation in which a COI editor is making substantial edits to his own biography, while simultaneously attempting to obfuscate his identity (I find it hard to believe Steve Beren refers to himself as "Steve Beren" instead of "me" or "he" instead of "I" ...) Finally, the edit log indicates you created this article about yourself on July 8, 2006. I advice you review Wikipedia's Law of Unintended Consequences. BlueSalix (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Checkuser comment: Declining this case, there is nothing that will be able to technically confirm these are the same user. Suggest semi-protecting the page rather than blocking anyone here.  Risker (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

[from Steve Beren] In referring to myself in the third person in some cases, I was just trying to avoid a small version of what I now have learned is called the "Streisand effect" (or, in this case, a "mini-Streisand effect"). There are misleading and inaccurate things in the new article, and actually I thought some of the negative comments in the original article should be retained for more balance. At least everything in the old article was actually accurate. I guess there's not much I can do about the inaccuracies. Also, I made clear my identity in my email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org and referenced the entire controversy. Finally, I have some concern about the inclusion of the name of a roommate who was supposedly suspected of subversive activities. The whole thing was a few minutes out of my life - "is so-and-so home?" / "no, she's not here right now" - and maybe a few minutes of such conversation, and that was it, and nothing ever came of it. Why should her name be in this article, which could affect her family today? Couldn't it be changed to "While living in Detroit in the 1970s, Beren was questioned by the FBI who were investigating his roommate AT THE TIME, A YOUNG Socialist Alliance partisan suspected of subversive activities. According to a congressional report of that incident, THE ROOMMATE had previously...." and etc.? [from Steve Beren] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.205.112 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Steve Beren - the best place for you to explain the problems with the article is the talk page of the article itself. You can make an edit request by applying the  template with your request (it's a specific one for articles where the proposer has a real or perceived conflict of interest) and other editors will review.  Risker (talk) 03:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no abusive socking or dishonesty in this person's use of IP addresses. Closing without action. AGK  [•] 13:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)