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/MarkBA))
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.


MarkBA[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)))


MarkBA[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 07:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 Confirmed - very. - Alison ❤ 08:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Clerk note: blocked by Elonka. Tiptoety talk 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU assistance needed[edit]

Could you confirm that MarkBA (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is indeed 78.99.161.255 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) There was a previous case a short time ago, seems the same sockmaster is returning again so your help would be appreciated. Hobartimus (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evasion of editing restrictions placed under the Digwuren arbcom case, and continuation of all the previous activities listed in the earlier checkuser case, edit warring, harassment (mass reverting of targeted user) general disruption. Hobartimus (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Confirmed that is his IP. Thatcher 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBA[edit]

request links: main • edit • links • history • watch
Filed: 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly two different users. I do not want to accuse anybody, but it is highly suspicious[12] that these IPs are belonging to one or two of the following users (see explanation below):



Replace this text with your explanation of your request for checkuser and examples of policy violations.


Same language, same edits, same points of interest, same accusations (vandal, extremist, chauvinist, nationalist), multiple WP:CIV and WP:NPA in edit summaries and on talkpages, etc. etc. (see contribution lists' edit summaries) This case is huge, and possibly this is just the top of it. The owner (s)of the IPs must be banned for life imho, since this is obviously good for nobody, and they are digging the ditches between Slovakian and Hungarian/Slovakian-Hungarian users deeper and deeper, so urgent action needed.

More of this can be read here, with lots of links (even to previous cases) and explanations, (I don't want to copy all material here): User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, especially at here:[34] and at here:[35] Rembaoud (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: User:Elonka adviced[36] to create this page. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the actual thread is here: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Tankred's userpage, and my actual advice was to try an SSP report first, since a CheckUser might get rejected.[37] But, if you wanted to take the time to pull together the diffs, that's yours to spend. We'll see what the CheckUsers say. --Elonka 14:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. I found checkuser more clear, than the SSP thing, since we do not know who's are they, and they might impersonate MarkBA as well as did it with me. Better not to accuse anybody. BTW WP:SSP and WP:RCU seem(ed) pretty similar to me. --Rembaoud (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP 78.99.121.251 with multiple disruptive edits/edit warring belongs to User:MarkBA. This edit summary rang the bell. He also used the phrase "Capiche?" during a discussion here (and I've never heard this coming from anyone else on Wikipedia). Here he tries to own an article MarkBA created. The IP edited exclusively Slovakia related articles, just like MarkBA. Here making similar edits as MarkBA earlier at the very same article. Here edit warring at a category MarkBA created. More than suspicious.
As the IP has a clearly disruptive editing pattern, I think a Checkuser is needed. Squash Racket (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I protest against personal attacks posted on this attack page. Since the recent creation of his account, User:Rembaoud main activity was to change official geographic names in Slovakia-related articles to their Hungarian versions. He has been reverted by all the users listed here, but that basically is the only thing that we have in common. Rembaoud has been placed under editing restrictions and his edits are being discussed at [[User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. As to the "evidence" presented at this page, there are no real diffs proving that the anonymous user(s) have broken 3RR or something. The used code letters are unjustified. As to the personal attacks, I ask Rembaoud to remove offensive statements, such as "clearly a highly disruptive and agressive user", "with no credibility", "mass uncivility", "edit warring", and "attacked the administrator wich tried to mediate". I also ask him not to misrepresent block logs. I have been blocked only twice, not four times. The first "block" mentioned by Rembaoud was immediately canceled by the same administrator with the edit summary "Apologies: my mistake - hit the wrong tab". The second "block" was canceled with the edit summary "per request; was reverting a banned user". The insults on this page violate both the NPA policy and Rembaoud's editing restrictions. They should be withdrawn by their author or deleted. Tankred (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed I think you need to follow the SSP investigation and try to narrow it down to a specific user. Thatcher 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thatcher, SSP is a better option. You can probably copy/paste most of this into a new report at WP:SSP, and then post a link to the SSP case to the "Experiment" discussion. Then different editors (including non-involved editors) can weigh in with their opinions on who they think might be behind different accounts. If we have a clear consensus there, administrative action can be taken directly, without requiring a CheckUser. In general (Thatcher, please correct me if I'm getting this wrong), an SSP is a better "first stop" for complex sockpuppetry investigation. --Elonka 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I deferred consideration is that this looked like a fishing expedition against anyone Rembaoud disagreed with. However, I looked at the history of some of the articles and there is definitely a problem here.  Confirmed that all the IPs are MarkBA (talk · contribs). But given that, there appears to be tag-team reverting and edit warring on both sides, and I recommend listing this incident at WP:AE not only for consideration of MarkBA's actions, but whether any or all of the editors of the contended articles be placed on 1RR or other sanctions per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. (I note for example misuse of Twinkle among other problems.) Thatcher 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thatcher.  :) I've actually got a centralized page going at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment and have already issued restrictions on several of the involved editors (see User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment). I'm a little confused though on which restrictions I am allowed to place as an uninvolved admin, since per the "letter of the restriction" at Digwuren, it only applies to Civility, AGF, and NPA. But it would seem that the spirit of the ruling should also allow me to place revert restrictions. MarkBA hasn't been active for a week, but I have placed two other editors on "no non-vandalism reverts for 30 days" restrictions. What do you recommend at this point? Do you think I should file a request for clarification to ensure that I'm on firm ground as regards edit war restrictions, or should I proceed as I've been doing? Any admin who wishes is of course welcome to join my "experiment" page, but I'd rather see it through than turn it over to AE, since I'm learning a lot which is helping with proposal writing for the WP:WORKGROUP. And just based on history from the last 72 hours, it looks like the experiment is successful so far, as the tag-teaming has almost entirely stopped, everyone is starting to engage in discussion, and use of admin tools was minor, just 3 page protections, and one anon blocked for 15 minutes.[38] There's definitely still a ways to go, but it seems to be definite progress so far.  :) --Elonka 06:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA‎ --Rembaoud (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBA, and all of the listed anons, have been tagged for sockpuppetry and blocked for 1 week. --Elonka 09:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I demand an apology for being accused of using a sock puppet, especially because Rembaoud accompanied this accusation with derogatory terms.--Svetovid (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Svetovid and would like to ask someone to remove personal attacks on this page. Rembaoud is under editing restrictions and many words on this page clearly violate NPA. Tankred (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to mess with this page since it's really more in Thatcher's sphere, so I will bow to Thatcher's wisdom on how to deal with issues of civility and refactoring here. However, Tankred and Svetovid, what I would recommend is that you post a very polite request to Rembaoud's talkpage, with a diff of the edits that you are most concerned about, and ask (again, politely) if Rembaoud would consider removing certain comments which you find offensive. Most editors respond very well to this, and I know that I would take it as a very strong sign of good faith if Rembaoud were to accommodate your (polite) requests. Note that Rembaoud would also be free to make similar (polite) requests of you though. --Elonka 14:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.


More