Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkThomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you are creating a new request about this user, please add it to the top of the page, above this notice. Don't forget to add
{{Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkThomas}}
to the checkuser page here. Previous requests (shown below), and this box, will be automatically hidden on Requests for checkuser (but will still appear here).
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.

[edit] MarkThomas

  • Code letter:E

User:Sarah Williams is an account which exists solely for the purpose of supporting MarkThomas in edit conflicts. This has been ongoing since September, but apparantly no-one noticed. It has been used for ongoing vandalism, disruption of the consensus process, as part of MarkThomas's personal vendetta against William Connolley, and intitially for 3rr violation.

Evidence of 3RR breaking:

1st change being instated by MarkThomas:

  • [1] (1708, inserting "visibly praised" language)
  • [2] (1715, rephrasing to "visibly praised", 1st revert)
  • [3] (1718, again restoring this language, 2nd revert)
  • [4] (17:37, the third revert, without the word "visibly" this time, but still a revert nontheless

2nd change being instated by MarkThomas:

  • [5] (06:59, reverting removal of this section, 1st revert)
  • [6] (17:07, 2nd revert)
  • [7] (17:12, 3rd revert)

Sarah reinstates both changes MarkThomas was making simultaneously:

  • [8] (22:41, fourth revert)

(Incidently, this was Sarah's 3rd edit ever, the first two were the addition of popups and Interiot's tools to his monobook file. [9] [10])

I believe the evidence on here should provide grounds for the check quite nicely, but more can be provided if necessary. --tjstrf12:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added some annotations to make this clearer. Hope you don't mind my interpolations. Morwen - Talk 12:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. The reason it's formatted like that is because he'd been edit-warring over this for substantially more than one day. If you want the initial addition of the praising Saddam material, it was here. The praise from Al-Quaeda bit had been there for who knows how long prior to this specific incident. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 12:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First off - I am not a "sockpuppet" of anyone. I studied Wikipedia carefully before I started editing and made all the right steps. Secondly, I do know Mark Thomas and have not denied that I do, but I am not the same person. Is there a legal recourse for Wikipedia when someone like this keeps systematically insulting and defaming me? In all the edits above, I was simply attempting to rectify and ammend deeply biased pro-Galloway edits. I take it you are not commenting politically by focusing on these edits? If not, then maybe you would like to visit the talk page of that page before passing such superficial judgement. There are hundreds of past efforts on that page to try to mention the fact that Galloway praised Saddam and it is only through Mark Thomas' efforts and those of others that it is mentioned at all. Personally I think you should be ashamed of yourselves targetting him (and me) in this way for what is basically trying to de-POV the page. This was the cause of the original William Connolley ban by the way and I see that instead of examining that properly, you have simply leapt to his defence. Sarah Williams 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed. Dmcdevit·t 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it.
Subsequent requests related to this user should be made above, in a new section.