Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA (2nd)

User:MarkBA

 * Suspected sockpuppeteer


 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Report submission by

Hobartimus (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Main evidence, CheckUser confirmation from User:Thatcher. The IP editing as MarkBA and attempting to hide the evidence a few minutes later when he realizes he demanded apology as “MarkBA” but signed the post as the IP.
 * Evidence

Supporting evidence, general description. was recently blocked for mass puppetry as established per checkuser (see list of previous puppets) (see previous checkuser case ) and now it turns out that he continued where he left off the new sock is confirmed by checkuser , now the new sock and the master account need blocking. The good faith of administrators was completely abused here. MarkBA has 4 blocks, but only one shows up in the block log of the main account and they treated him like a new user every time. See these talk pages for example   where he is constantly welcomed, invited to discussion, advised to create an account all the same steps taken over and over, with incredibly short blocks “not to bite” for example the 4th block is only for 3 hours  for “Disruptive editing: Multiple reverts with uncivil edit summaries”. The socks were generally used for mass incivility, personal attacks among other things like often using edit summaries   to abuse fellow editors. The latest sock 78.99.161.255 is no less disruptive with every single edit is a revert of a user. I think it’s safe to say that if all the edits were made with the main account it would be blocked already but by avoiding scrutiny and abusing good faith and being treated like a new user every time, the accounts got away with a slap on the wrist. The sockmaster account, MarkBA was already under restrictions per the Digwuren arbcom case. Only the Checkuser confirmed socks are listed in the category there can be many more currently undetected. Admin action is needed against the main account so it can be properly tagged as sockmaster and the socks can be collected and their contributions can be followed from there. Administrator Ricky81682 suggested a block of the main account "If a checkuser has determined they are his" (it did).

The latest puppet last active a few days ago still remain unblocked untagged and the main account needs to be dealt with. The community should decide wheter checkuser confirmed repeat abusive sockpuppetry is something to endorse and reward or sanction. Another "slap on the wrist" type block could be taken as open encouragement of this type of abuse since getting CheckUser confirmed proof is not always an easy task even in this case there can be much more abuse and disruption, only unconfirmed by CheckUser. As per admin Ricky81682 comments, blocking dynamic IP-s is not an effective way to deal with this, I endorse an indefinite or substantial block of the main pupeteer account,. Apart from the conclusive checkuser evidence several administrators already reviewed some of the case when a previous block for abusive sockpuppetry was applied but MarkBA repeatedly blanked these discussions from his talk page in an attempt to hide the evidence. MarkBA moved most of his editing abuse, harassment, edit warring, personal attacks to the sockpuppets but returned "within hours" when the main account was blocked to ask for unblock. See some of the old discussions here,, and a consensus of several admins that  was indeed the pupeteer for example  , the talk page even had to be protected by administrator Yamla a little later due to constant blanking by MarkBA. In the face of overwhelming evidence these continued denials by MarkBA (latest denial “I’m not responsible for the IPs” can only be seen as a weak attempt to confuse administrators, hide past actions from scrutiny, so the next puppet can get the same "red carpet treatment" as the previous ones. Starting with level 1(!!) warnings more warnings  without action  invitations to discussion of the same user invited multiple times before  advice to create an account given to a long time abuser  and even when the block comes (4th block of the user, under restriction already), who already had an 1 week block before it's only for 3 hours, all the diffs come from the talk page of a single puppet confirmed by checkuser only later  as it takes time to get confirmation. Time of good faith users is wasted this way constantly with no progress other than warnings or miniblocks for a dynamic IP and no consequence to the main pupeteer account with all the blocks not following him and not showing up in his block log. If something is not done admins will have to start giving out level 1 warnings again, when dealing with a multiple times blocked, under restriction, checkuser confirmed abusive sockmaster, who has no intention of giving up socking, instead denies that the whole thing ever happened. The main account should be blocked and identified as a repeat confirmed sockmaster so future users and admins at least know what they are dealing with. Hopefully this is the right place where admins experienced in dealing with sockpuppets can handle this (there was a previous ANI thread that drew comment only from a single administrator).

I'll be forwarding this case to WP:AE (arbitration enforcement) in a moment. That's where MarkBA can be dealt with. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 07:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments

The Digwuren case remedies do not mention socking, which is what this case is. So I'm handling it as a normal SSP case, remedy-wise, and logging at AE, SSP, Digwuren case log, and MarkBA's talk page. There is no doubt that MarkBA has repeatedly used socks and he/his socks have been blocked at least 4 times. This is highly disruptive. I'm blocking the IP in the SSP case one month, blocking MarkBA for three months, and giving MarkBA an topic ban for six months. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Conclusions