Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Slingb/Archive

Evidence submitted by AussieLegend
Earlier today, 86.15.32.123 removed a citation from Derren Brown without explanation. The edit was reverted and shortly after, User:Slingb was created. Slingb then started edit-warring, ignoring all of the warnings on his talk page, as well as a message asking him to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It wasn't until I gave him a final warning that he actually did discuss it. Eventually he apparently gave up on his request and posted on the talk page that he'd emailed site admins, I assume for derrenbrown.co.uk Soon after that, the site was taken down temporarily, indicating a possible COI. It is unusual for "site admins" to respond so quickly to an email from the general public, especially since it was near midnight on a Saturday in the UK, and the disputed content in question had been in the article for some time previously. It seems more than coincidental that action was taken only today. Slingb stopped editing the article while discussing, but remained disruptive on the talk page. Instead, 188.223.67.189 made a couple of changes, deleting part of the content that Slingb had wanted removed, and adding warnings. After that IP had finished, User:The Cardman added the same warning. All of these editors have very limited histories, all have edited only magic related articles and both IPs geolocate to the UK. If there isn't some sockpupperty involved, meatpuppetry is definitely likely. Slingb has since made comment on my talk page that makes me believe that he knows what is going on. This is best read for correct context; he was clearly aware that the method for accessing the page was valid - that was what he was complaining about, and he seems to be boasting about not editing the article - very likely he was aware that others were making edits for him. AussieLegend (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Auto-generated every six hours.
 * User compare report

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Ok, my list of events, somewhat different than AussieLegend's (and all provable if looked up).

I arrived here from a magic forum where there was discussion that the password should not be included. I removed the line and it was undone. Not being a wiki editor I was unsure of what was going on, It mentioned that it was removed because I didn't have an account and it was coming from a public IP. So I made an account and removed the line. It was undone again saying I need to provide a deletion reason. OK, I re-removed the line and provided a reason this time. Then it was undone but with no reason from the person who undid it (I thought reasons had to be given?). I for the final time removed the line and put in my reason for someone to please contact me as to why it was being put back up (people mentioned a talk page but I didn't know what or where that was). So I started a discussion on the article talk page.

On there I put the question looking for guidance on the answer. I got a response from AussieLegend who seemed to know the ins and outs of Derren Browns PR people and said that the password was a "marketing ploy" and that a password isn't secret if "a large group of people know it" (this still confuses me and goes agaisnt wikis own meaning of a password). After our discussion which didn't get anywhere I asked in the wiki chat room for guidance from other users that weren't out to just "teach the problematic user how to use Wikipedia". I received some good guidance there on privacy policy etc and balanced opinions.

I collected all information up and submitted it through the contact form on the the db site. I also DM'd one of them on twitter letting them know I'd emailed (which is I assume why it was read so quickly). The mere fact that the page was moved and the question changed shows that it's not a "marketing ploy" and they genuinely don't want the page accessible by the general public - this is my opinion, I can't confirm this as I haven't got back a response explaining, but I think its the most logical conclusion when you take into account the message regarding password publishing now on the page in question.

Meanwhile magicians in the forums have been watching the whole thing unravel, and it spread through the magician network. There's nothing I can do about other people changing it. It seems that everyone is happy with what's on the page just now (i.e. a link to the page but not the answer to the question). I fully agree with Fæ that for it to stay that way would probably be best otherwise the removals will just continue and there's nothing I can do to stop them as I didn't ask them to in the first place, apologies. Slingb (talk) 12:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments by other users
I have been monitoring this user after giving them a welcome after their first doubtful edit. AussieLegend's summary is accurate and I agree that considering the nature of the BLP subject, the contribution from other accounts may be either planned meatpuppetry or contributions from others within the social/networking circle. The website being referenced is effectively a fansite and so some of similar contributions (particularly anon IPs) may be from Brown fans interested in the article. Slingb claims to have emailed and perhaps the outcome of that dialogue should be taken into account? I note that the page is now under semi-protect which is likely to halt the problematic anonymous edits and perhaps an explanation from Slingb (or a even a denial) would resolve this matter. I have left a friendly note encouraging them to do so.

On a pragmatic level, it should be noted that the website password that Slingb strongly objects to being published on Wikipedia seems (in my opinion) to be of doubtful educational value and its inclusion would fail to comply with WP:NOTMANUAL. If at the end of the day the contested material is not going to stay in the article, this would remove any incentive for these accounts to continue apparently behaving against the SOCK policy. Fæ (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
Very much per technical evidence; the only difference between the two accounts is the ISP, nothing else. –MuZemike 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appears to be meatpuppetry instead of socking, and a 3RR block at this time would not be appropriate.   Nakon  23:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)