Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:MarkThomas[edit]

Suspected sockpuppeteer

MarkThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

LiberalViews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Sarah Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added per [1])
86.135.32.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (added per [2][3])

Report submission by

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

My radar started bleeping when MarkThomas came to the defence of LiberalViews on Rockpocket's talk page here.

MarkThomas's block log is important first off. He was blocked at 11:54, 8 November 2006. LiberalViews account was created at 13:34, 8 November 2006, while MarkThomas was blocked. LiberalViews very first edit was to Co-counselling, an article which MarkThomas has edited extensively both before and after, see the history.

At 17:55, 8 November 2006 MarkThomas was blocked for longer for evading the existing block, using a sockpuppet confirmed by this checkuser. Note that the last edit from the sockpuppet was adding back the information LiberalViews had added back after it had been removed, which was then removed by another editor.

Another editor remarked that LiberalViews account was created on the very same day that MarkThomas was blocked. Both accounts take a keen interest in the George Galloway article as well, both accounts sharing the same viewpoint on adding a statement about Saddam Hussein to the lead. There's also a related discussion here.

Recently LiberalViews has migrated to the Great Irish Famine article, which MarkThomas also edits and was also a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. LiberalViews almost instantly attacked Domer48 on the talk page, which is something MarkThomas has repeatedly done with his normal account prior to the ArbCom and being sanctioned, for example see here.

There's also the allegations of allegedly biased allegedly Irish allegedly POV admins like User:SirFozzie from LiberalViews, such as this, this and this. MarkThomas has previously made several such comments, such as this, this and this.

After an few initial edits on 8 November 2006, the account was dormant until 26 August 2007. All edits since then from both accounts are below in chronological order, MarkThomas in italics and LiberalViews in normal face and indented. Anything in bold is where a talk page post is in the slightly unusual format of "==text==" which is common to both accounts.

My conclusion is obvious. The account was created while MarkThomas was blocked, and instantly started editing the Co-counselling article, which MarkThomas is a frequent contributor to. There's other common articles such as Re-evaluation Counseling, George Galloway and Great Irish Famine, where the accounts share the same views, and also attack the same editors and make the same claims of POV factions. The accounts never edit at the same time, because one person is controlling them - MarkThomas. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I added Sarah Williams (talk · contribs · deleted��contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MarkThomas. -- Jreferee t/c 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I don't really understand most of this, does it mean I am supposed to be the same person as whoever Mark Thomas is? That's silly - I don't even know him, although we have spoken on Wikipedia. One thing to mention is that One Night In Hackney has stated on his talk page that he is leaving Wikipedia and was also having a row with Mark Thomas on Rockpocket's talk page recently about my conduct, which whilst I am sure wasn't perfect, was I feel somewhat inflamed by the behaviour of Vintagekits, who is also under considerable discussion to be permanently blocked. Vintagekits and One Night in Hackney are discussing their collaboration on the talk page of One Night in Hackney, so maybe the whole thing is some sort of got-up activity by them?

Pretty awful really, all that happened as a new user is I had a chat with Mark Thomas because I agreed with some of his posts and he suggested I look at some articles. This appears also to be what many other editors, including Domer48 mentioned above do. All the editors mentioned above hold extreme-Republican Irish views and attempt to control Wikipedia articles in those areas, something that should be against Wikipedia policies. An absolute scandal really. LiberalViews 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are flat out lying here. No such discussion has taken place. Don't forget, administrators can not only see your existing list of contributions (which any user can see), they can also see a list of any and all contributions that you have made that were deleted. So either, the two of you have collaborated off of Wikipedia, making you a meat puppet, or the two accounts are controlled by the same person, which makes you a sock puppet. SirFozzie 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this discussion take place? You've never posted to his talk page, and he's never posted to yours. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled - I thought you'd left - but here you are! LiberalViews 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to answer the question? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find you to be worth debating with. For example, I have just been checking carefully and there are numerous falsehoods above in your text. It really doesn't matter to me what you do or say and frankly the rubbish that occurs here and the devious manipulations you engage in are representative of how poorly some people behave around here. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned - I'm still curious though, have you really left, or are you back already!! LiberalViews 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can not say that I’m surprised. The comments are all the same, and while I’m under the conditions of the Arbitration, I will remain measured in my comments. We will no doubt have a great deal of accusation and insinuation which will be devoid of diff’s to substantiate the assortment of claims. I consider the above comment by LiberalViews to be both a personal attack and an assumption of bad faith. I will post a warning to that effect after this post, as this is not the first, nor will it be the last. --Domer48 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone in any doubt about Domer48 as a trustworthy and competent Wikipedian can simply browse archive 10 [4] of the talk page on Great Irish Famine to see him at work and see what other editors think of his fascinating conduct. Almost worth a separate study in it's own right! LiberalViews 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've had a great deal of contact with MarkThomas, "We will no doubt have a great deal of accusation and insinuation which will be devoid of diff’s to substantiate the assortment of claims. Now are you going to answer ONIH's question, because I can not see any conversation? --Domer48 19:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also curious about something; what brought Domer48 to this article? It isn't mentioned anywhere else but in a (deleted) entry on my talk page; are you stalking me Domer48 or are you in private co-ordination with One Night in Hackney? Which is it please? LiberalViews 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did. Or I should say you and User:MarkThomas. who also deletes unfavourable comments from their talk page? So where was this conversation you two were supposed to be having? Are you not going to address the evidence presented? --Domer48 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually what happens and the way I do it is I am having discourse with another editor I put there talk page on my watchlist nothing mysterious or conspiritorial about Domer seeing this page and then adding comments. Trying to deflect your own position by using the tired old conspiracy by republicans is laughable answer ONIH question and stop throwing silly accusations around. BigDunc 19:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that LiberalViews has been used as a "bad hand" (although some would say "worse hand") deliberately causing trouble in two areas that have both seen recent ArbCom cases. Great Irish Famine obviously comes under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine, and Martin Meehan (Irish republican) (for analysis of edits to that article and talk page see here) comes under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. I request that any action taken as a result of this takes into account the sensitive nature of user conduct and article editing in the areas covered by the ArbCom cases, and the attempts to inflame the situation by LiberalViews. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkThomas this also.--Vintagekits 21:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I concur with assessment. --Domer48 20:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of evidence that supports One Night In Hackney's suggestions that MarkThomas and LiberalViews are the same account. Especially interesting is this diff by MarkThomas, on how easy it would be to fool checkuser [5]. Needless to say, the evidence is also circumstantial, but I feel under WP:DUCK that it's a good match. SirFozzie 21:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Considering MarkThomas's statement regarding check user avoidance strategies, one must make the analysis based on edits. An inconclusive check user would mean very little. It looks extremely convincing. I suggest, in the spirit of recent discussions, that an "uninvolved" admin review the evidence and conclude it. Rockpocket 21:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence looks pretty damning to me here. Furthermore, comments from Mark titled, "Checkuser - good luck with that" tend to indicate forethought which really, really doesn't look good under the circumstances here - Alison ^❤ 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Quack quack. I have applied the banhammer, Mark Thomas has a history of block evasion and even if it weren't him (which I don't think anyone other than Mary Poppins would believe) the last thing we need is yet another tendentious editor on these subjects. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a followup, User:Monthneedbe‎, cited above in the evidence, turned out to be a sock of RMS. Who'd a thunk? :) - Alison ^❤ 22:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Using Sarah Williams to evade block - On 19 September 2006, Sarah Williams added to the George Galloway "in which he praised Saddam on live TV"[6] On 25 September 2006, MarkThomas added to the George Galloway article that Galloway praised Saddam on live TV[7] and received a 3RR block. MarkThomas subsequently was confirmed to be Sarah Williams and was using Sarah Williams to evade his block to edit the George Galloway article.[8]. -- Jreferee t/c 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Using 86.135.32.117 to evade block - MarkThomas had multiple edits to the William Connolley article where he removed the statement "Connolley holds a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics and D. Phil. from ...", the last time being 09:02, 8 November 2006.[9] MarkThomas was blocked from editing two hours later at 11:54, 8 November 2006 through 00:55, 9 November 2006. The first edit by 86.135.32.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was five hours after MarkThomas was blocked, at 17:35, 8 November 2006. 86.135.32.117's very first edit was to the William Connolley article, in which 86.135.32.117 removed from the article "Connolley holds a Bachelor of Arts in mathematics and D. Phil. from ..."[10] This was while MarkThomas was blocked. I went through all the article diffs after 86.135.32.117 removed the material and no one other than 86.135.32.117 and MarkThomas have deleted the Bachelor of Arts statement from the article. 86.135.32.117 made three edits - all to the William Connolley article and all while MarkThomas was blocked. -- Jreferee t/c 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Using LiberalViews to evade block and double team User talk:Rockpocket

• Articles MarkThomas and LiberalViews both have edited: Avebury, Co-counselling, George Galloway, Great Irish Famine‎, Laughter, Maurice Burgess, Re-evaluation Counseling, User talk:Rockpocket, User talk:SirFozzie, Tears, Tom Baker‎ -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit summaries and posts for the George Galloway‎ article. MarkThomas edit summary "This is the very best known thing about George Galloway. How can it possibly not be in this para? The arguments about repetition are just specious attempts to whitewash him." for the posted text "in which he heaped personal praise on Saddam Hussein."[11] LiberalViews edit summary "I thought this was what Galloway was best known for" and the posted text "in which he outspokenly praised Hussein in glowing terms."[12] MarkThomas edit summary "This is after all one of the things he is best known for - along with pretending to be a cat on Big Brother!" for the posted text "during one of which he was filmed praising Saddam with the words "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability"[13]. -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews edited the Dianetics article with the edit summary "Mention of Harvey Jackins as well-known squirrel group founder"[14] and added the text "A well-known example was Harvey Jackins, founder of Re-evaluation Counselling, originally a sort of discrete reworking of Dianetics, which L Ron Hubbard later had declared suppressive to Scientology."[15] This was while MarkThomas was blocked. MarkThomas had previously edited Harvey Jackins 43 times and subequently edited Harvey Jackins.
• LiberalViews added Harvey Jackins to the Human Potential Movement article[[16] and MarkThomas had edited the Harvey Jackins article 79 times.[17]-- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews edited Emotion with the edit summary "Re-evaluation counseling view on emotion"[18] and posting "painful emotion is best relieved via the well-known (and sometimes automatic) discharge processes."[19] MarkThomas edited the Re-evaluation Counseling artricle using the edit summary "RC sees it as an attempt to encourage discharge of painful emotion."[20] -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews edited Heartbeat (TV series)‎[21] and MarkThomas updated the Mary Woodvine‎ article with her Heartbeat appearance.[22] -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews opposed a merge of History of the British Isles[23]. MarkThomas opposed a merge of British Isles[24]. -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews added Re-evaluation Counselling as a "see also" to the Human Potential Movement article[25] MarkThomas has edited the Re-evaluation Counseling article 101 times, Sarah Williams edited the Re-evaluation Counseling article 10 times, and LiberalViews edited the Re-evaluation Counseling article 4 times. -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews removed a category from the Karl Marx‎ article with the edit summary "Whatever else he was, one thing Marx wasn't was a Marxist! Marxists are followers of Marx."[26] MarkThomas removed a category from the George Galloway article with the edit summary Galloway isn't anti-war and he's a stalinist marxist.[27] -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• LiberalViews edited the Perspiration article with the edit summary "(Re-evaluation counseling view on sweating; psychotherapy." MarkThomas edited Co-counselling with the edit summary "Clarifying why RC has guidelines; also it's not screaming, it's warm perspiration." MarkThomas edited George Galloway with the edit summary "Just the usual truth about Galloway - stand by for outraged censors, their keyboards are turning wet with perspiration. :-) Over to you Sandy." -- Jreferee t/c 04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

• There may be more socks. Using Wikistats, check the contributors to the Re-evaluation Counseling article to see who posted when some of the socks were blocked. -- Jreferee t/c 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• MarkThomas posted this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TharkunColl, which may be reason to review that SSP matter again. -- Jreferee t/c 04:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Named accounts blocked by other admins. I tagged them. Sarah William confirmed from RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]