Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MarkBA

''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Request for checkuser. Please do not modify it .''

MarkBA



 * Code letter: B, F


 * Supporting evidence: For evidence on banned sockpupeteer MarkBA see previous CU cases and SSP . The Autobahn is the latest confirmed sockpuppet for reference, previously confirmed IPs can be found here the IP 194.160.75.10 listed was blocked as a sock of MarkBA. user:Do not drive it please outright identifies himself as a sockpuppet/secondary account and his editing style and articles he edits show some similarity to that of MarkBA and socks. However after 15 or more of his socks being detected and blocked it is expected that he will try extra hard to conceal them.  Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * . Jayjg (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA



 * Code letter: B F


 * Supporting evidence: On MarkBA see previous cases including CheckUser and SSP  and AE  There was some concern by several users that the account "The Autobahn" might be used by user:MarkBA to continue editing  . This, if true would be in violation of both block and topic ban  see also Digwuren arbcom case logs on . Hobartimus (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - very. - A l is o n  ❤ 08:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked by Elonka. Tiptoety  talk 16:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

CU assistance needed
Could you confirm that is indeed  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)
 * Assuming that he is editing while logged out, what is the policy or enforcement violation? Thatcher 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ✅ that is his IP. Thatcher 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MarkBA

 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).
 * There are possibly more out there, many violating 3RR, ALL involved in edit wars, and possibly belonging to editor(s) whom are under general restrictions from a previous arbitration . This massive edit warring campaign is ongoing on at least 40 pages, it would take days (better to say "years") to read them through. This is possibly the top (=recent) manifestaion(s).

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


 * Code letter: A, C, E, (possibly B & F too, if the IP's user(s) is/are listed here:)


 * Supporting evidence: Replace this text with the diffs that is required for the above code letter, full details at the top of Requests for checkuser. ONLY PUT DIFFS ON THIS LINE
 * Diff 1:
 * Diff 2:

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


 * User:Svetovid: 3x blocked for edit warring, look at his contribution list. When he was unable to manage User:Nmate blocked (public enemy no.1 for Svetovid, Tankred, Tulkolahten, and MarkBA), he eventually attacked the administrator wich tried to mediate between them. See this: and this oddity. He made some other funny "steps" against this "biased user", User:Ricky81682. More links to previous cases are inside these links.
 * User:Tankred:4x blocked, all during edit warrings, twice he was paroled due to WP:3RR policies. look at his contribution list. He placed a lengthy personal and general attack against User:Hobartimus, User:Squash Racket, and me on his userpage. When the personal parts wrre removed, he started an edit war, to put them back, even claiming the opposite. The full section was deleted from his userpage since, with no revertwar for putting it back since. Tankred is under general restriction since April 17, clearly a highly disruptive and agressive user. With almost no credibility
 * User:MarkBA - no blocks but mass uncivility and multiple attempts to manage Nmate blocked wich all fall back on him (for example:, more links to previous cases inside), since he was way more uncivil to Nmate (and others in general, see link). Mark now seemingly edit warring from at least one IP (see above) There are massive general attacks on his userpage as a farewell text(?) "couple of mobs pushing their crazy political propaganda", "being chased or harassed by a couple of jerks", "fight extreme nationalist and chauvinistic edits" (see the favourite words "chauvinistic", "propaganda", "nationalist"? :)) ) - obviously referring to User:Hobartimus, User:Squash Racket and - probably - me. Tankred was not that "polite", see above.
 * User:Tulkolahten:1x blocked for edit warring. Plus once again in a previous edit dispute, but unblocked, since the blocking admin was the same he was disputing. Posted also multiple misleading edit summaries. Whenever on of them is revealed, he goes into edit warring and a lame dispute, trying to prove that red is indeed, not red, just seems like red. Tulkolahten's edit summaries are also lacking credibility. See the latest: and try to find when did Hradec Kralove became HK (aka a non-german town) (some wikiclues:Expulsion of Germans after World War II & ). This edit is what I call history falsification. Tulkolahten is under general restriction since March 30, but massively edit warring ever since, , ,


 * - two edits on March 28 to Bratislava Castle. Nothing since then, but the edits were problematic.
 * - similar as above, active until April 2
 * - similar as above, active March 29/30 (together with 78....151 WP:3RR violation, the two edited within 1,5 days on the same page from same range, WHOIS,etc.)
 * - similar to above, provocative edits on Bratislava Castle on March 28 (together with 78....229 WP:3RR violation, the two edited within 1,5 days on the same page from same range, WHOIS ,etc.)
 * - multiple disruptive edits from April 12 to today. The account has been formally cautioned. Multiple violence of WP:3RR on ,
 * - impersonator of User:Rembaoud from same range as the previous IPs
 * - also an impersonator(?)
 * - Edited Juraj Janosik on Svetovid's side, reverting 4 times, same edits as Svetovid's and Tankred's on that page.

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: and at here: Rembaoud (talk) 12:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: User:Elonka adviced to create this page. --Rembaoud (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, the actual thread is here: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, and my actual advice was to try an SSP report first, since a CheckUser might get rejected. 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)

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)
 * 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)


 * 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.  ✅ that all the IPs are .  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 Requests for arbitration/Digwuren.  (I note for example misuse of Twinkle among other problems.) Thatcher 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  There's definitely still a ways to go, but it seems to be definite progress so far.  :) --Elonka 06:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: Suspected sock puppets/MarkBA‎ --Rembaoud (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * MarkBA, and all of the listed anons, have been tagged for sockpuppetry and blocked for 1 week. --Elonka 09:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

''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.''