Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User:Mctrain

[edit]
Mctrain (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Mctrain

Mctrain (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Prior SSP or RFCU cases may exist for this user:

Report date March 30 2009, 16:46 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Deor (talk)

Cavourman seems clearly to be a block-evading sockpuppet of Mctrain (talk · contribs), some of whose previous incarnations are listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mctrain. The user's first edits were to Barbaro family and Albergo, adding text similar to that added by previous Mctrain socks; and when the edits were reverted and it was was pointed out, in a comment since removed by Cavourman from his talk page, that the reference cited did not support the information added, Cavourman restored the edits, citing a different (and less accessible) source and misspelling the author's name the same way it was misspelled by Mctrain and previous socks. User:Bostoncircle is an account created this morning, whose initial edit (and only edit so far) was to emend typos in Cavourman's edits. Deor (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
Comments by other users


CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Deor (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I think I probably messed up by filing this under the Cavourman name, but for previous checkusers see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Societyfinalclubs. Deor (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I have received a notice from Deor to come here. I created Bostoncircle because I am having problems loging into my account, I think I forgot my proper password, and I created a new account now under CavourBoston because I am having problems with the Bostoncircle login too, but ultimately, I have no intention of long term editing for Wikipedia- I just edited these two pages because I am doing research on Italian history for a paper, and both pages are related, and were not executed well.

I put in additional information explaining the House's various branches, and organized the page a bit because it was very poorly written, and unclear. Any person who comes to that page needs to understand why there are more than one palace for the family, and to have greater clarity on the three lines of the House. Each has different titles, and did differnt things in the history of the House of Barbaro.

I already explained my initial clerical error, both on my talk page and on the talk pages of the articles. I also expained it again on Deor's talk page too. As for the author I have seen it written more than one way ie. "Spretti" or "Spreti"- the source is also not obscure, it is sometimes classified as the "Italian Encyclopedia of Nobility" or other forms too. It is the top source used to clarify details about all Italian noble families- there is nothing more reliable to a House's titular legalities. Hope this clarifies things for you- please send any additional comments to CavourBoston.CavourBoston (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
  •  Confirmed the following as Mctrain:
  1. Dmshistory (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Cavourman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Bostoncircle (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. CavourBoston (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

IP range blocked again. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Dmshistory, I am only "Cavourman, Bostoncircle, and Cavourboston" as explained. I am also not related to user "Mctrain". You are mistaken with your research.CavourBoston (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: The encyclopedia of Italian nobility is, infact, a huge, expansive multi-volumed encylopedia of all of the Italian nobile families- make sure you go to the proper volume for just the Barbaro family- the family is very old, with much written about them, their volume is under "B' and called "the encylopedia of Barbaro nobility". CavourBoston (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So can we get blocks on the named socks? Deor (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Blocked, tagged, and archived. Synergy 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date July 18 2009, 18:05 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets


Evidence submitted by Deor

These two accounts, created three minutes apart on 1 July 2009, have been making the sorts of unsourced additions of material related to the Barbaro family that characterize the Mctrain family of sockpuppets. To anyone familiar with the long history of the Barbaro-related socking, edits such as this and this look mighty familar. Deor (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Materials were sourced by [[1]] validly. Pagetools is my account, and Harpercollege was an assisting account. Harpercollege is of no relation to a school of that name, it is an acronim of "Harold (my name) for (per) college". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pagetools (talk • contribs) 18:22, 18 July 2009
  • I have been communicating a bit with Deor on this concern. It appears that some valid information has been removed on suspicion of "sockpuppetry", but if valid and sourced infomation is removed just on account of a technicality, i.e. sockpuppetry, that doesn't mean that the sourced information that was removed was not valid in the first place, no?Pagetools (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just did a little reserach on line, and I have found out that user DEOR is one of the problematic administrators who has been harassing legimate users. I found this link that demonstrates that several adminstrators have some issue against Barbaro-family subject matter, and they have been building false cases against users under a "Barneca" watch page. Here is the link: [[2]]. From my own experience, I noticed that Deor only notified me after I did some general organizing to the Barbaro-family page.
  • I do not appreciate being played with- nor do I respect individuals who have agendas against legitamte topics and information. I will notify Wikipedia of these problematic administrators if this type of behavior continues. thank youPagetools (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments below by Edward 321, are typical "trolling hooks". There isn't a single edit that was made that was not legit, and clearly by the link I found, listed above, you are one of the people that have had a long agenda against Barbaro-family subject matter. You are one of the people who created a false list of so-called "hoaxers", and after you and others blocked good accounts- you just went and said whatever you wanted about them- to completely paint the "picture" and version that you wanted to see- I agree with the blog- it appears to be simple jealousy on your, and others, parts. Maybe if you didn't spend all of your time trying to destroy, you might actually accomplish something in your life that would be worthy of your own Wikipedia article. Clearly, you are just a hater- and a waste of time to discuss with. see yaPagetools (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by other users

Clearly passes the duck test. Pagetools is making the same grandiose false claims about the Barbaros while insulting good faith editors and making vague threats. New twist is admitting to sockpuppetry using the Harpercollge nick. Since the Barbaro hoaxer has a long history (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mctrain) and access to at least two variable IPs I recommend checkuser to flush out additional hidden socks. Edward321 (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the ANI thread started by Pagetools, and I looked at Pagetools' edits in Barbaro family, and I endorse this request. User started doing small improvements, but then he started trolling, doing changes based in bad sources, and it's highly likely that it's Mactrain using a new sock. Also, even if we leave aside the relation to the hoaxes, the two accounts are clearly the same editor. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser requests
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Deor (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]


Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

I've blocked Pagetools as an obvious sock, one that was being disruptive while this case was awaiting attention. Please do run checkuser as this chap seems to register lots of accounts. May as well find, block and tag all of them now. Jehochman Talk 04:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.



Report date October 19 2009, 12:44 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]



Evidence submitted by Deor
[edit]

Catal uber appeared two days ago and has been editing both Barbaro family and Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois), two of the favorite targets of McTrain and his numerous sockpuppets. This particular combination of interests seems unlikely for anyone not a Mctrain sock. Jky52 I'm less sure of, but this account also appeared recently and has been editing Barbaro family in a somewhat disruptive fashion. Mctrain and his previous confirmed socks are probably stale for checkuser purposes, but I'm requesting CU to determine whether the two new accounts are related to each other and whether there are any other new socks lurking about.

Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

Comments by other users
[edit]

User Catal Uber is now supporting the Vitus Barbaro hoax. [3][4] the same thing that Mctrain [5] and his numerous socks did.

I’ve also added User John misumi. His edits to Vision Industries have added the Vitus Barbaro hoax [6] [7] , which had previously been added by one of the variable IPs McTrain has used to get around his blocks. [8] [9] [10] Edward321 (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By behaviour, and by the use of similar unreliable sources for the same dubious stuff, Jky52 = Catal uber. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same behavior as a million times before. When confronted about accusations of sockpuppetry, the user goes to find a school article and add well-sourced information there. I'd say this is almost certainly another one of the same hoaxer(s). (ESkog)(Talk) 17:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please tag and protect User talk:Dr.Oak to WP:DENY him his little soapboxes. Also please tag User talk:Chiboyers --Enric Naval (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious socks. As far as I can tell this isn't exactly a hoax that his person is trying to perpetrate. I think delusions of grandeur might be a more appropriate term. There has been a number of efforts to add information regarding Vitus Barbaro the alleged current head of the Barbaro family and automotive designer to a number of place on the internet, I think this person feels that Vitus Barbaro has noble lineage (maybe they do), but unfortunately for them there doesn't seem to be a single reliable piece of information on this person, aside from a newspaper clipping posted on Aviosion [11]. The person behind this often uses similar tactics of multiple accounts to appear more legitimate. This has been going on for years here and I imagine it will continue, fortunately there are enough eyes on these articles that it is unlikely to be a major issue. --Leivick (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John misumi is still active and has added the hoax info to Vision Industries yet another time. [12] Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed how this account was adding "Princely Count Vitus Sebastian Barbaro, Baron dell'Albergo" in Vision Industries[13] and that none of his edits there use correctly a source. Can we have a WP:DUCK block on that guy, please? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Deor (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]



Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
-- Luk talk 11:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, IP range softblocked. -- Luk talk 14:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.




Report date December 8 2009, 20:54 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Daniel J. Leivick
[edit]

I have blocked both of these accounts as obvious sock puppets per WP:DUCK, but think it might be more efficient to do a check user and see if we can dig up any unused socks in the drawer. A IP range block might be worthwhile as this is a very long term issue as evidenced by User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. Any other advice on dealing with this long term issue would be appreciated. --Leivick (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wanted to add some of my thoughts on this matter as a whole. I think it is pretty clear that we are dealing with the Vitus Barbaro from this newspaper clipping [14]. I actually think this person is sincere in their belief that they have a connection to the Barbaro family. Maybe I don't know internet hoaxing well enough, but it seems to me that this person has been trying for about 3 years to put information regarding Vitus Barbaro on just about every open content internet site out there with very little luck. He was shot down here, he was shot down at Royal Forums and he was shot down at freebase. It seems to me that if they were in fact trying to hoax they would have given up by now. If you haven't seen it already this is rather telling regarding this persons relationship with Wikipedia [15] (I am mentioned as well as several other editors) not to mention this persons ability to talk with themselves on the internet. In short I think we should be cautious in labeling this issue a hoax. It obviously is long term abuse, but I think that in their own way this user is acting in good faith. I am hesitant to reach out to this user given the history, but there has to be a better way than constantly blocking these sock puppets. I wouldn't mind hearing other peoples thoughts on this matter. --Leivick (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person's persistence is in no way evidence that their statements are not a hoax. Examining their edit history shows they have repeatedly falsified sources to support their claims. For example, this is a version of the Barbaro family page created by them. [16] Contrary to the grandiose claims, there is no evidence the Barbaro family are related to the Julii, or recieved titles from the House of Hapsburg Loraine, or received a title from the Manchu Emperor. And that's just the false statements in their intro. There is no evidence that Vitus Sebastian Barbaro is an automotive designer or an art historian or an aerospace engineer, let alone all three. The only real question is whether they believe this false history they have created for the family and themselves, but either way their repeated adding of false statements under numerous nicks using several variable IPs is vandalism of the worst kind. Edward321 (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by accused parties   
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.

  • There is way too much confusion going on here and jumping to an awful lot of conclusions with no proof what so ever. Vitus has nothing to do with any of this, nor are all of these people sockpuppets, and nothing about the Barbaro family is a hoax. No one has any control on what people post on the internet, and no one should jump to any conclusions, very irresponsible to keep calling things hoaxes or blaming people without any such proof- please reference further discussion left on Daniel's talk page.12qq (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of the users, lumped in with the "socks", but I think there is confusion that maybe I can help you with. I was unblocked because I explained something to the administrator. I signed up an account through the educational system that I am involved with, which has both students and faculty creating Wikipedia accounts through a few ranged IP's, that is the way the system is set up here. All of these people that you called socks, are not in fact all the same people, just individuals tied to the same server. Each student/faculty member must create their own account, which is giving the impression of the same person, but they are not.
Without getting overly personal, this institution is one connected to a particular noble individual whom attended here, which many of the students, as well as faculty, respect and admire. Many of these students want to add information about this individual to Wikipedia- of which the institution does have a publish record of this individual's family history and personal accomplishments (up to a certain year). I think all of these students are in good faith (at least the vast majority of them), and I would expect that also some professors may have tried to remedy certain articles related to VSB.
I would recommend a few things to you. First, VSB is not involved, and should not be accused. Second, what you are calling a hoax, is not accurate, and that accusation is getting many students angry. I would recommend getting rid of the 'Barneca" list which shows up on google searches and makes students motivated to address this article within Wikipedia. If Wikipedia does not have information pertaing to this person (or any person for that matter) then say "he/she can not be verified" or "the information can not be verified". Don't say or label things a "hoax". That is very irresponsible and negative energy will fuel more negative energy, especially in this case which is not infact a hoax. VSB is very private and kind and highly respected in various circles.12qq (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted on my talk page. I don't have time to respond right now, but if others want to feel free. --Leivick (talk) 07:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked around a bit and this is what I gather. Students have been editing this article, and a while back a professor created a major version with full citation. He says he was blocked unfairly, called a hoaxer and sockpuppet and that all of his work was reverted. He says Wikipedia never read the actual sources provided, and he says he never came back to Wikpedia again after that. I gather students kept returning to correct the page and were also blocked. A professor "Lesterollo" came here yesterday and corrected the vandalized page, copy edited it, and also posted a link on the discussion page which was all reverted.He says you can not reason with Wikipedia. 12qq (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are my final thoughts on the matter. Definitely get rid of the Barneca watch page. It isn't doing anyone any good. I would say bring up the page that Lesterollo copyedited yesterday and just flag the top with a banner that it needs additional verification. Also, you can just put a citation icon on any of the individual points within the body that you feel needs additional verification for Wikipedia's standards. This way, when Wikipedia gets around to reading sources, you can take off the flag at the top, and over time each individual citation icon will also be filled in with additional sourcing too. Really, this would be more for your personal comfort zone because I am completely confident on Lesterollo's version which is fully cited , but I understnd your concern if you are not that familiar with the topic.
  • Also, while I see everyone calling him Princely Count blah blah blah on the internet, which is true, but in reality, I have never heard the man refer to himself by his titled name once. He is very modest, friendly and well liked by everyone who knows of him. I think you would like him too if you knew him personally. He deserves better treatment on Wikipedia.
  • I also see from Daniel's user page that you are an MFA student and you are into cars, who knows, maybe your path will cross with VSB one day. He is really passionate about working with others in the arts. I really couldn't tell you any more. Take care and God bless 12qq (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Comments by other users
[edit]

Another one has shown up: Frank gilder (talk · contribs). Deor (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, in case it's helpful to the checkuser, Lesterollo (talk · contribs) and Klivebarker (talk · contribs). All three of the accounts I've named here have been blocked already. Deor (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbaro hoaxer has a history of falsifying sources. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Z. Gilbert.

Lesterollo’s edits to the Barbaro family page involved removing almost all sources that were already in the article, including the official website for one of their palazzo and a 1996 history of the Barbaro family published by Istituto Veneto di Scienze. [17]. They also don’t source many of the more controversial claims.

Lesterollo is also fond of sources that cannot be verified. References 1, 2, 4 are from an edition of the source with no online preview. [18] Editions that do have online preview do not discuss the Barbaro family in the way or at the place Lesterollo claims [19] and also show that the Lesterollo’s definition of the case vecchie (old families) is wrong. [20] Those editions that do have preview don’t even go to page 288 and do not discuss the survival of the Barbaro family in their last pages. [21]

References 5-7 and 41 are also from a book by Alvise Zorzi with no online preview. [22] There are several titles by Zorzi that do have online preview, but Lesterollo isn’t using them, or even editions that have preview. [23]

Reference 10 is online. It does not mention the San Francesco della Vigna at all. [24]

References 12, 14-20, 65 are from yet another book with no online preview. [25] References 22 & 23 are to another book with no online preview. [26]

Reference 13 doesn’t seem to exist. [27] [28]

References 24, 26-28, 30-32, 34, 37, 38, 40, 42-64, 66-69 are from volume B of Vittorio Spreti’s "Enciclopedia Storico Nobilare Italiana”. There is no Volume B to this work. [29]

References 25, 29 are to yet another work with no online preview. [30]

Reference 33 does not mention the Barbaro family at all. [31] Reference 35 has no online preview. [32] Reference 36 does not mention the Barbaro family. [33]

Reference 39 does not mention the Barbaro family at all, either. [34]

To sum all that up, Lesterollo cites sources 69 times in his version of the page. [35]. 39 of these cites appear to be to books that do not exist. 21 are to works with no online preview. Of the remaining 9 references that editors can actually check, 4 are clearly false. Edward321 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, in general, with Edward's analysis of the sourcing. All of this is, however, to say nothing of the fact that, to judge by the previously posted information about Vitus Barbaro, he attended college in the early 1990s; and it seems rather unlikely that suddenly a whole raft of students and professors from his old school would show up 15 years later with no interest in Wikipedia other than setting the record straight about his family. Deor (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser requests
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion )
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Leivick (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]



 Clerk endorsed – I think those previously-hardblocked IPs and ranges may need to be reblocked, or the person found new ones. MuZemike 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]

The following are  Confirmed matches for each other:

  1. Frank gilder (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Lapbofrack (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Hin-Gin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Pantenic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Klivebarker (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. Lesterollo (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The following are  Likely verging on  Confirmed matches for the above:

  1. Historiananna (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Wiki Response (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The following is an older but interesting  Likely match for the above:

  1. Jky52 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The following are  Confirmed matches for each other, and  Possible matches for the above:

  1. 12qq (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  2. Nilloliver (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  3. Z2933 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  4. Grimjimmers (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  5. Flibby55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  6. 34ww (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

– Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I also applied a brief softblock to a particular range of IPs, relating the above groups. Accounts registered prior to the block will still be able to edit; the block is pretty short, more to stave off trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions
[edit]

Marking as closed. MuZemike 07:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Report date March 2 2010, 15:01 (UTC)
[edit]
Suspected sockpuppets
[edit]


Evidence submitted by Edward321
[edit]

The Liber noblitas blog [36] is an obvious example of the Barbaro hoax to people familiar with the previous Sockpuppet investigations of McTrain or his various socks. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs. User 68.45.224.27 is the first to try to use the website as a source [37] on Palazzo Serra di Cassano. At Albergo (family) they attempted to add information in a way that made it appear that an already listed source supported it [38] [39] [40]. The listed source does not mention what the IP added. [41]

Historian1947liguria is a SPA [42], who has also tried to use the Liber Nobilitas website as a source. [43]

PalazzoSerra is another SPA [44] who has tried to deny there was is a hoax, [45] something many nicks of the Barbaro hoaxer have claimed.

12.197.43.194’s only posts since 2008 have been to Barbaro family and the associated talk pages.[46]. This article is the favorite of the Barbaro hoaxer, blocked sock Tiki-two has made 344 edits to it, blocked sock Mctrain has made 258, blocked sock Save Venice has 62. Most of the IPS are other socks, as are blocked socks Jky52, Cavourman, 12qq, Lesterollo, Catal uber, Dr. Oak, Pagetools, and Chiboyers. [47]. In 12.197.43.194’s only post to the talk page they claim to Barbaro family was descended from the Julii and that a member was part of the Order of the Dragon, [48] both common claims of the hoaxer.[49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

TimmyOT is another SPA, who has posted only to Barbaro family and its talk page.[57] They show more knowledge of references, [58] templates [59], and redirects [60] than your typical user with only 5 edits.[61]

The hoaxer has a history of using multiple IPs to “support” themselfs. Several variable IPs have been rangeblocked before, though I do not know if any of those range blocks are currently in place.Edward321 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by accused parties
[edit]

See Defending yourself against claims.


Comments by other users
[edit]
I've blocked the three named accounts per WP:DUCK. Looks like the IPs might already have some range block, as both IP's block link is "Change Block" rather than "Block." OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
[edit]
Checkuser request – code letter: E  + B (Community ban/sanction evasion and ongoing serious pattern vandalism)
Current status – Completed: Reviewed by a Checkuser, results and comments are below.    Requested by Edward321 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

 Clerk endorsed, sleepers and underlying IPs, thanks. Tim Song (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Confirmed - the following;
  •  Possible - the following, on behaviour;
... though the IP clearly traces to a public access service at 'Fairfield Inn Suites' :/ - Alison ❤ 06:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a new low as far as not having a life is concerned if somebody has to resort to staying the night at motels to evade blocks. –MuZemike 15:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This case has been marked as closed. It has been archived automatically.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mctrain/Archive&oldid=1142566899"