Yes, the "marking" thing has been around for a long time. Mid-70's, I think.
I recollect that the Flock book requires "repeated warnings" to the offender(s) BEFORE a marking talk is given. In other words the "official" party line here is to try and get the "offensive" behavior changed behind the scenes first, using marking as a last resort. This procedure was/is not always followed.
As others have said here, no name(s) are mentioned, but the "objectionable" behavior is zeroed in on sufficiently so that you (in cong) would know who to apply it to if you saw such.
Yet another "avenue/means of control" over people's lives, in most cases going far beyond any reasonable scriptural basis.