Misplaced Pages

:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:34, 30 June 2008 editRomaioi (talk | contribs)1,518 edits →User:Giovanni Giove: more defence - modifying layout to suit originally intended defence (i.e my larger passage written chronologically before accusor additions).← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:53, 14 May 2022 edit undoBruce1ee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers267,384 editsm fixed lint errors – links in links; rm link linked elsewhere 
(16 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{SSPa}}
===]=== ===]===
;Suspected sockpuppeteer ;Suspected sockpuppeteer
Line 56: Line 57:


;Comments ;Comments & Defence
In short: be it edit style, reference formatting (or rather lack thereof), edit summaries, insults and topics point to a single person, who abuses aforementioned accounts to manipulate sensitive topics with biased edits. I first filed a report at ] and after being informed about many similarities with indef banned ] I decided to request a check on the user here. In short: be it edit style, reference formatting (or rather lack thereof), edit summaries, insults and topics point to a single person, who abuses aforementioned accounts to manipulate sensitive topics with biased edits. I first filed a report at ] and after being informed about many similarities with indef banned ] I decided to request a check on the user here.


Line 68: Line 69:
:: added ] a dormant user who comes back to life today and continues the same nationalist propaganda crusade where the today blocked ] left off. (]) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC) :: added ] a dormant user who comes back to life today and continues the same nationalist propaganda crusade where the today blocked ] left off. (]) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
:::I have blocked ] 24 hours for violating 3RR at ]. ] (]) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC) :::I have blocked ] 24 hours for violating 3RR at ]. ] (]) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: ] clearly another sock to go on were ] left off tonight. --] (]) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC) :::: ] clearly another sock to go on were ] left off tonight. --] (]) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

* Interestingly, most of these suspected usernames tend to be Italian, otherwise they are English. ] is a Greek word. It does not fit the pattern. ] (]) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

*The main page at ] indicates that I have gone to the trouble to create a main page for myself. All the other accused sock puppets, with the exception of one, have not done this. The fact that a ] main page exists, does not fit the pattern of the rest of the accused. ] (]) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

*I would like to have disclosure of the Generalmesse IP disclosed here. This in itself will show that we are not the same person. If the IPs do not match then there is no case. ] (]) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

* none of the points of evidence put forward above involve me as either ] or the IP 123.2.111.245 (IP number discussed below). Check my edits closely; chronology, content, citsations, and the real number of citations. ] claims above that I made "the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...". Well if you check the revision histories of the Tobruk related articles ], ], and ], I have made no contributions just mentioned in this sentence. Also as IP 23.2.111.245, made a sum total of tiny edits to fix spelling to the ] (). Whats the crime in that? '''] has lied in his very first accusation.''' Moreover, I have only made a few contributions to the 2nd battle of El Alamein (discussed below along with my citations).] (]) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

* Of the references disclosed by myself at ], you will find that two of them were first (most likely) introduced by me and none of the other names in question, with the exception of IP 123.2.111.245 (see below for infomration concerning that IP). Check the patterns in detail. They do not match. ] (]) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

* When I was notified by ] of the accusations against me I was provided with a link to ]. I was not able to find direct reference to me on this page and accordingly requested an apology. I only found the correct link: ] by chance. Given the narrow and manipulative nature of by ]’s evidence against me included on the latter page over the past day (discussed below), I would like to question if this was deliberate to mis-direct me to a page that I could not edit and not allow me to see (nor reply to) the case being presented against me. ] (]) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

* If one were to read the my full discussions at ] particularly the section on the Julia division, it should be evident that my view is not pro-fascist. ] is arguing that I am pro-fascist through his belief that I generalmesse, as he stated to me: ''' you have massively reinforced the suspicion that you are in fact a sock of ].''' Now I suspect that the checkuser has indicated that I am not ], but ] has persisted with his twisting arguments.

::Rather, at ] , while talking to ] I stated clearly that my interest in WWII history was the plight of the soldiers and civilians which I also stated to ] . There is evidence there that I am in fact anti war. It can also bee seen in these discussions with ] that we compromising on what was correct figure for the strength of a division.

::Now, I have only posted on such topics for less then one month ('''actually it was less than 2 weeks!''' - enough to have committed a crime according to ] - '''has anyone noted this?'''). And in that brief time I have concentrated on the legacy of bias against Italian soldiers, predominantly at ] where I expanded on an earlier version of the section from another wiki page (that was not in the right location for it). It appears that this section of work is the main basis (along with my discussions at ]) for which ] believes me to be ]. Now I have explained below the chronology of my edits here and have pointed out where ] has mislead you all. Note that the section has been modified by others since my expansion in early June.

::Furthermore, '''if my contributions and edits are examined thoroughly, it will be seen that my comments in the ] that I tend to focus on verifiable citations. And, as I am repeating continuously in this defense, I have sought only to post material of a verifiable nature – and the citations I have provided are all from English texts which are clearly not pro-fascist''' (and some are from websites). When the nature of all my contributions and their characteristic of presenting cited information are considered how can I be considered to be like the pro-fascist posters that you believe to be sock puppetting? Please do not focus solely on the minute and manipulated information that ] has presented. I believe, in light of my disclosure and arguments that I deserve to be treated with ]. Currently, that ] has not been extended towards me.

::Rather than go to extent of deleting (I actually believe it to be vandalism – seeing that it was a fully cited section) the section which offended ] attempting to tar and feather me, I believe that ] could have been shown and an discussion page on the topic would have been a more polite option.

::Karriges, believes that what I have written has a place where it is (discussed below). Are we to label him a sock too because he has supported its inclusion.

::Now, if we may, in addressing my big '''sin''' of pointing out that Italians were not cowards and that their involvement has a legacy of being largely ignored in English texts, lets please focus on the main sources that I have been citing:

::I will quote relevant fragments form the first 3 pages of: {{cite book| first=Ian W.| last=Walker| title=Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts; Mussolini's Elite Armoured Divisions in North Africa| publisher=The Crowood Press| location=Ramsbury| date=2003| isbn=1-86126-646-4}}.
:::''In Britain and the wider English-speaking world almost everyone is familiar with the Desert War fought in North Africa between June 1940 and May 1943. They have all herd of the famous Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and his 8th Army. They are equally familiar with his legendary opponent Field Marshall Erwin Rommel and his Deutches Africa Korps (DAK). The epic encounter between these two rivals an their two forces that took place at El Alamein is viewed as one of the key battles of World War II. There are countless book on the North African campaign, ranging in scope from academic studies of the grand strategies through to personal memoirs. In their entirety these works manage to touch on almost every conceivable aspect of the conflict.
:::''In spite of this, I hope to offer an entirely different perspective on this familiar campaign of World War II. This will come form a focus on the hitherto neglected Italian involvement. In all previous accounts in English, the Italians have either been ignored completely or afforded little more than an acknowledgement of their presence – yet they made up the bulk of the axis forces involved in this campaign, a fact not yet reflected in existing accounts. They are sometimes allowed a place during the first phase of the campaign as Britain’s only opponents, but the arrival of Rommel in early 1941 quickly relegates them to obscurity thereafter.....In terms of their influence on fighting, however, they are usually dismissed in a few paragraphs that primarily concentrate on describing their many deficiencies. Thereafter, they are usually ignored.....In Britain pople are familiar with the war time propaganda images of endless lines of Italian prisoners...This strong visual image was reinforced by contemporary newsreel and newspaper accounts of Italian military incompetence and cowardice, often involving the use of racial stereotypes. This image was often deliberately contrasted with German military efficiency and ferocity. This produced a strong British prejudice against the Italians very early in the war, which has consistently been reinforced in most histories produced since its end....All this has left a powerful legacy in English-speaking accounts, in which the Italians are widely seen as a nation of dilettantes, devoid of military skills and entirely lacking courage. It high is time, however, that this view was re-examined to reveal what, if any, truth lies behind it. It is only by doing so that we will be able to assess what impact the Italians actually had on this campaign. ....The process really requires a complete re-evaluation of the Italian economy and the political and military systems......''

::Surprise, surprise, some of my, "Romaioi’s", words and assertions in ] are similar to those of Ian A Walker.

::Ian Walker’s perspective, reflects my perspective ( I am a citizen of an English speaking country so I think I would have some perspective on this). Now, if Ian Walker was to register a username and post on this topic, will he be accused of being Generalmesse too? Is he also to be labeled pro-fascist because of this? Last time I checked, he was a British historian/diplomat PS. I believe that I (romaioi) am the first to cite this book here – you might want to cross check that with the references made by the other accused.
::::I doubt that ] has read this book. I am sure if he did, being an from the Italian military, he may feel somewhat slighted and would probably feel inclined to inform the authors of their misconceptions.

::I also cited: {{cite book|first=John |last=Bierman |coauthors=Smith, Colin |no-tracking=true | title=War without hate : the desert campaign of 1940-1943| publisher=Penguin Books |location=New York|origyear=2002|edition=New edition| date=2003| isbn=978-0142003947}}
::: Bierman and Smith do not focus on the Italians in the manner that Walker does. But they mention the Italians, non-disparagingly, and the action of particular units throughout the book. They have a chapter dedicated to the Folgore. This is one of the sources of my citations on the Foglore, Ariete, German Ramke divisions on the ]. As can be seen from the revision history, my modifications were minor, mainly in the form of providing names of divisions, small edits and introducing citations. Is this not what an editor is supposed to do? I did not make contributions to the .
::::I do not believe that I was the first to cite this book. It is a best seller, so why would it be surprising that more than one contributor would do so. Perhaps some cross check should be done here too. Once again, these are British and not pro-fascist
::::: I suggest above two books are purchased and read by those who study the North African campaign. I regard them as new generation WWII history books.

::I also cited {{cite book| first=Eddy| last=Bauer| coauthors=Young, Peter (general editor) |no-tracking=true | title=The History of World War II| location=London, UK| publisher=Orbis Publishing|origyear=1979| edition=Revised edition| date=2000| isbn=1-85605-552-3}}.
::: I like this book (the original is several volumes). It is, in my opinion purely objective, sticking to facts and figures and actions. It makes no derogatory assertions about one nation or another. And it attempted to highlight the adversities faced by all sides. And it highlights where divisional units on both sides performed well, militarily. It is how a book should be written – some would think it dry. Bauer was a Swiss General.
::::do I need to say that it is must read?
:::: I have cited it ubiquitously, including in my contributions to the ].
:::: As with Walker's book, I believe that I (romaioi) am the first to cite this book here – you might want to cross check that with the references made by the other accused.

::This (what I have illustrated above) is the kind of information I have been presenting. I doubt any reasonable person will see that it fits the same patterns of those that I am accused of being ('''particular seeing that, as ] has stated to me, they are citing fascist content''').

:: ] has used, somewhere, my contributions to the El Alamein battles as proof that I am Generalmesse. I don’t see how any reasonable person could think this. Examine the revision histories and see for yourself. And check my sources.

::I have consistently quoted phrases from these books to in my contributions, while attempting not to embellish too much in order to help the reader see that the information comes from these authors, not me. Last time I checked, this how everyone was supposed to write. Even in the ] in question (you will need to examine earlier versions to get to my expansion) which seams to have sparked ] accusations, the wording largely comes from these sources. I would hope that the examiner of this defiense would also appreciate that I left in much of the original wording (i.e. that of the originator). After all, my goal was to expand on it, note replace it wholesale. '''Seeing that it therefore had a legacy of the original writer’s words (who may or may not be a sock) is this why the WRONG assumption has been made that I am also a sock?'''
:::I also quoted General Alexander as pointing out that Italian units were fighting better than their German counterparts towards the end of the Tunisia campaign. I am quoting a British General (the source was Bauer’s book, page 428 – remember the book was first introduced by me) – how does this make me pro-fascist and likely to be Generalmesse?

::Now, I must ask concering these three books that I have cited, if the facts and arguments presented in these books are worthy of international publication, why are they not ok here?

::Moreover, if someone else in this big wide world, even in a place like Australia with over 1 million ethnic Italians, who has access to the same bookshops and libraries and apparently stated similar (but stylistically different) views to the authors of these books ( which I doubt is the case with the other accused) and even myself, does that automatically make them me? Even though a close look will show that the patterns do not match, to ], who has examined only part of it, has presumably not read the sources and I believe has clearly manipulated my comments (discussed below), it does.

::Check the IP’s. Check the quality of the citations that I made compared to the other accused and check the number of contributions I made. Also check how long its have been since I have made significant contributions. The patterns to not match the evidence (''poorly researched accusations, in fact''') that is being thrown against me. The fact that I didn’t know about the 4 tildas a month ago should also be a dead give away.

::Also, it seams that if you are of Italian descent, you are automatically guilty of unreasoned bias - my contributions will show this not to the case.

::I am not Generalmesse or any of the other accused socks.

::] (]) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)




Added ] canvassing for support for this editors campaign on ] (DagosNavy has been canvassed before and doesn't co-operate). Diff here: Added ] canvassing for support for this editors campaign on ] (DagosNavy has been canvassed before and doesn't co-operate). Diff here:
Line 94: Line 161:




::: I added the IP 123.2.111.245 Reason: from this edits here it is clear that it is ] furthermore this IP was the one copyediting the large pro-Italian paragraph into ] taken from ], a paragraph writeen just hours earlier by Romaioi , but Romaioi claims: ] some time ago'']... he found it there before he himself copied it there??? ::: I added the IP 123.2.111.245 Reason: from this edits here it is clear that it is ] furthermore this IP was the one copyediting the large pro-Italian paragraph into ] taken from ], a paragraph writeen just hours earlier by Romaioi , but Romaioi claims: ... he found it there before he himself copied it there???
::: Also: Romaioi say: ''"It is a topic that requires addressing because of the long legacy of English texts to have a largely dismissive, non-factual, non-"NPOV" towards Italian soldiers."'', ''"It’s objective was to point out that Italian soldiers of the era were not cowards, as depicted in too many English texts."'', ''"I am have recently made contributions on Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus etc is because they are topics are not covered very well in English texts - which my language (and what is covered is usually in disparaging/dismissive tones and not based on the facts)."'' "''As a scientist,..."'', ''"My skeptisim comes from the tendency of authors of English texts (particularly the older ones) not have done their homework regarding the Itatalian contributions and other minor powers, literally. Further, they tend to be almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement."'' It is 1:1 what Generalmesse is saying and the claim with the scientist... oh dear, yesterday he wanted to be a published author,... --] (]) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ::: Also: Romaioi say: ''"It is a topic that requires addressing because of the long legacy of English texts to have a largely dismissive, non-factual, non-"NPOV" towards Italian soldiers."'', ''"It’s objective was to point out that Italian soldiers of the era were not cowards, as depicted in too many English texts."'', ''"I am have recently made contributions on Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus etc is because they are topics are not covered very well in English texts - which my language (and what is covered is usually in disparaging/dismissive tones and not based on the facts)."'' "''As a scientist,..."'', ''"My skeptisim comes from the tendency of authors of English texts (particularly the older ones) not have done their homework regarding the Itatalian contributions and other minor powers, literally. Further, they tend to be almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement."'' It is 1:1 what Generalmesse is saying and the claim with the scientist... oh dear, yesterday he wanted to be a published author,... --] (]) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Line 110: Line 177:
::Regarding IP 123.2.111.245, I disclosed this to be ME at ], note the date and the content of conversations (May 27th, 2008). Why has this been conveniently overlooked? I did not really know how to use Misplaced Pages back then. I used this before I registered as ]. And afterwards when I forgot to log on, I naturally would have contributed as IP 123.2.111.245 (being at the same physical location). Either way, view the content changes that I made as IP 123.2.111.245! They are predominantly minor edits etc. Please note that ] assumptions as per this passage: ::Regarding IP 123.2.111.245, I disclosed this to be ME at ], note the date and the content of conversations (May 27th, 2008). Why has this been conveniently overlooked? I did not really know how to use Misplaced Pages back then. I used this before I registered as ]. And afterwards when I forgot to log on, I naturally would have contributed as IP 123.2.111.245 (being at the same physical location). Either way, view the content changes that I made as IP 123.2.111.245! They are predominantly minor edits etc. Please note that ] assumptions as per this passage:
:::::''"large pro-Italian paragraph into Italian Army 1 taken from Military history of Italy during World War II, a paragraph writeen just hours earlier by Romaioi 2, but Romaioi claims: I expanded it from a “poorly” (and largely uncited) written version I found under Italian Army some time ago... he found it there before he himself copied it there???"'' :::::''"large pro-Italian paragraph into Italian Army 1 taken from Military history of Italy during World War II, a paragraph writeen just hours earlier by Romaioi 2, but Romaioi claims: I expanded it from a “poorly” (and largely uncited) written version I found under Italian Army some time ago... he found it there before he himself copied it there???"''
:: are wrong. There was an original version of it under ], as I stated at ]. The revision history is ] - edit made at 03:17, 1 June 2008. I copied it to ], as I said. Then later, when I was finished modifying it further, I copied it back to ]. Note that I said at ] that I kept it under ] because I did not want to annoy the originator of it. (It has since been removed). You will also see that this is where I borrowed the sentence fragment ''almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement'' (for a personal conversation on my talk page) that ] inserted above in his attack against me. '''The location of where the original passage that I expanded was there right under ]'s nose to see in the history of revision for ]. Yet he decided not to point out the truth to you all in attempting to implicate me.''' So what else is he lying about? :: are wrong. There was an original version of it under ], as I stated at ]. The revision history is ] - edit made at 03:17, 1 June 2008. I copied it to ], as I said. Then later, when I was finished modifying it further, I copied it back to ]. Note that I said at ] that I kept it under ] because I did not want to annoy the originator of it. (It has since been removed from Italian Army). You will also see that this is where I borrowed the sentence fragment ''almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement'' (for a personal conversation on my talk page) that ] inserted above in his attack against me. Moreover, in the Revsion history for ] '''My editor notes state: ''modified from another article (Italian Army)''. This indicates full disclosure on my part!'''...... '''The location of where the original passage that I expanded was there right under ]'s nose to see in the history of revision for ]. Yet he decided not to point out the truth to you all in attempting to implicate me.''' So what else is he lying about? If you check ]'s comments on this page pertaining to this particular passage, you should not that ] he has been inconsistent in regards to who he claims copied that passage, and whom from. It all sounds frivilous to me.


::Also note, that whilst ] claims that this modified contribution, currently under ] is revisionist fascist propganda, please note that ] believes that the passage has a place(]). Once again, note the source of the citations that I have contributed. ::Also note, that whilst ] claims that this modified contribution, currently under ] is revisionist fascist propganda, please note that ] believes that the passage has a place(]). Once again, note the source of the citations that I have contributed.
Line 132: Line 199:


* Proof that Romaioi is the aforementioned IP 123.2.111.245: * Proof that Romaioi is the aforementioned IP 123.2.111.245:
::Note that the large passage above (now above ] (]) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)) was being written before this garb here. The passage below addresses this. If the chronology of the cross links are examined it can be seen that '''I provided full discolsure that I was IP 123.2.111.245''' when I signed up was Romaioi. See ] and ] I was speaking with ] about it. Surely a third person can see the sincerity in my posts? Read the content. This is not a circus. This is a witch hunt!!!!! Can someone in authority please put a stop to this???????????? There were no anti-Romaioi accusations on this page before today. ::Note that the large passage above(now above) was being written before this latest supposed revelation by my accusor here. The passage below (now above) addresses this. If the chronology of the cross links are examined it can be seen that '''I provided full discolsure that I was IP 123.2.111.245''' when I signed up was Romaioi. See ] and ] I was speaking with ] about it. Surely a third person can see the sincerity in my posts? Read the content. This is not a circus, as my accusor puts it. This is a witch hunt!!!!! Can someone in authority please put a stop to this???????????? There were no anti-Romaioi accusations on this page before today. They only appeared once I requested a retraction and an apology.
::] (]) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ::] (]) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


::::This is proof that a little over a month ago, I did not know how to sign in, nor how to sign a post with "4tilda's". There I was trying to mannually insert a signature to follow the form of ]'s who was kind enough to give me some pointers. ::::The link ] has provided above is proof that a little over a month ago, I did not know how to sign in, nor how to sign a post with "4tilda's". There I was trying to mannually insert a signature to follow the form of ]'s who was kind enough to give me some pointers.
::::It is interesting that someone who did not know these things a month ago was able to log in as multiple users and type away for all those months (and years?). In case you didn't guess and wanted to use it to implicate me, that was sarcasm. How is the witch hunt going? ::::It is interesting that someone who did not know these things a month ago was able to log in as multiple users and type away for all those months (and years?). In case you didn't guess and wanted to use it to implicate me, that was sarcasm. How is the witch hunt going?
::::] (]) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ::::] (]) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::Also, don't just look at the last lines, read the whole passage at ] and note the sentences in the middle: '''I have registered the username Romaioi, as the create account page states "You are recommended to choose a username that is not connected to you." But I notice that some users appear to be using their names.''' Does this read like someone with lots of experience here? Moreover, '''does it read like someone who is trying to be deceitful?''' The whole user talk reaks as though I did not know ho things worked. I believe it is becoming plainly apparent (to a reasonable mind) that my accusor is the one who is being deceitful. ] (]) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC) ::::::Also, don't just look at the last lines, read the whole passage at ] and note the sentences in the middle: "'''I have registered the username Romaioi, as the create account page states "You are recommended to choose a username that is not connected to you." But I notice that some users appear to be using their names.'''" Does this read like someone with lots of experience here? Moreover, '''does it read like someone who is trying to be deceitful?''' The whole user talk reaks as though I did not know ho things worked. I believe it is becoming plainly apparent (to a reasonable mind) that my accusor is the one who is being deceitful. ] (]) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::'''Proof again of non-malicious intent on my part''' on my home page, ], highlighting my contribution statistics for all to see. Not that I have made 2 contributions ]. What else do I need to highlight to illustrate that I showed full disclosure from the beginning?


* also: it seems that this is '''an entirely new sock circus''' and not tied in with Giovanni Giove: , made by an Italian IP, while the above are Australian and Brunodam has a Bromfield CO IP. --] (]) 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC) * also: it seems that this is '''an entirely new sock circus''' and not tied in with Giovanni Giove: , made by an Italian IP, while the above are Australian and Brunodam has a Bromfield CO IP. --] (]) 14:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)



* Disclosure from Romaioi: if my above passages appear in any way emotional, I would hope that it is considered that it is not a pleasant experience to log on (by pure chance today, mind you) and find that you have been accussed of things you had nothing to do with. Administrators know they can can open the avenue for direct communication for identity confirmation. Yet again, check my contributory statements and my citations/sources - I suggest that my sources a read. Its all there. I have been providing lots of information in good faith and this person (my accusor) is being allowed to manipulate my every word. I would suggest, given the degree of manipulation by my accusor, and the extent to which this has become a tar and feather show, that my accusor should be reprimanded for his/her behaviour. ] (]) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)




:::* added ] reasons: one article edit sock, who refers to Allied POW camps as concentration camps just as the various sock of Brunodam do: i.e. Brunodam in the guise of Pannonicus refers to Allied POW camps as "Concentration camps" . --] (]) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) :::* added ] reasons: one article edit sock, who refers to Allied POW camps as concentration camps just as the various sock of Brunodam do: i.e. Brunodam in the guise of Pannonicus refers to Allied POW camps as "Concentration camps" . --] (]) 16:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


;Conclusions ;Conclusions
*You could probably make a decent case that some of these accounts are sockpuppets (or meatpuppets, I suppose) of each other. I offer no opinion on that since my activity level at the moment is low and I don't want to jump head-first into a sockpuppetfest, with all the fun that brings. What is clear, however, is that none of these accounts are Giovanni Giove - they don't talk or act like him, and these articles were not within his area of interest. &ndash; ] 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) *You could probably make a decent case that some of these accounts are sockpuppets (or meatpuppets, I suppose) of each other. I offer no opinion on that since my activity level at the moment is low and I don't want to jump head-first into a sockpuppetfest, with all the fun that brings. What is clear, however, is that none of these accounts are Giovanni Giove - they don't talk or act like him, and these articles were not within his area of interest. &ndash; ] 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Line 154: Line 226:
*Checkuser has been filed at ] and ]. Please check both pages. ] (]) <small>]</small> 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC) *Checkuser has been filed at ] and ]. Please check both pages. ] (]) <small>]</small> 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


*Thatcher has confirmed the links by checkuser, and East718 blocked the accounts that needed to be blocked. ] (]) <small>]</small> 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
---- ----
</div> </div>

Latest revision as of 23:53, 14 May 2022

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:Giovanni Giove

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

Generalmesse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
RadioBerlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Captainantoniocorelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Flylikeadodo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Steyr2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
MedagliaD'Oro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Drunkgeneral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Solarinoridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Romaioi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Regione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ronpillao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Saintsarecomingthrough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Ferruccio Vio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

an IP probably associated with the above
123.2.111.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
144.138.1.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
121.73.14.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

likely socks but to few edits to prove (yet):
144.138.1.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Michaelsweatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Rasputin65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Topmalohouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Historyneverrepeats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

--noclador (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Evidence
  • strong nationalist POV pushing of always the same (false) claim that "7th Bersaglieri Regiment took 6500 POWs at Mersa Matruth" 1st by Generalmesse, 2 by Steyr2007, 3 by Flylikeadodo
  • strong nationalist POV pushing in topics dealing with WWII battles with Italian participation or as he says: I have done much to rectify their image as "poor fighters"
  • this being the only topic that seems to be of interest to the users
  • all above are discussion resistant - if they head to a discussion page: insults, threats and lots of anger at "official allied historians" "that were embarrassed to admit defeat when Italians were involved" an example by Solarinoridge
  • none of the above signs comments
  • this: Generalmesse creates User Radio Berlin
  • all are experts at using google book search - i.e like Captainantoniocorelli whose third and last edit uses a google book by Tim Ripley as source Captainantoniocorelli and exactly the same book is used by RadioBerlin
  • insults - i.e. this one - also this is the 1. edit in six months and it exactly supports the opinion of the above and insults User:Kirrages and me - or this one insulting User:Nick Dowling and another insult
  • all have a very aggressive and threatening ton in their comments
  • his primary sources are: "Radio Berlin" (during WWII - go figure! what a neutral source!) "Radio Rome" or even worse: "The three Italian divisions have held their own through the rigours of winter, which was particularly bitter for them," Hitler told the German Reichstag" (in April 1942) - he uses that (!) as a source to prove that Italians fought bravely during WWII
  • if he is not pushing nationalist POV he is trying to justify the Dirty War in Argentina by quoting official (!) 1980 documents published by the perpetrating junta to describe the "danger" of the Argentine left... = same pattern of sourcing as he does with Radio Berlin and Radio Rome
  • If one begins a "discussion" another of the above socks continues it: Generalmesse & RadioBerlin (this edit also connects RadioBerlin to Drunkgeneral who both indulge in some obscure platoon positions ("R.3, R.4, R.5, R.6 and R.7") in the Battle of Tobruk Drunkgeneral and this would not be complete with Generalmese immediately chiping in with the same info as well here
  • always it is Australians, British and New Zealanders that lie about the "heroic Italians" this one comes from 144.138.1.184
  • a common love to add prisoner of war numbers (like trophies taken) - as well as inflating prisoner numbers by 500 on a whim 1 2

3 4 5

Comments & Defence

In short: be it edit style, reference formatting (or rather lack thereof), edit summaries, insults and topics point to a single person, who abuses aforementioned accounts to manipulate sensitive topics with biased edits. I first filed a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#sock master User:Generalmesse and after being informed about many similarities with indef banned user:Giovanni Giove I decided to request a check on the user here.

I made an error: this is not the 2nd but actually the 5th (!) case of Suspected sock puppets of Giovanni Giove!
I added User:Romaioi: just 100 edits but these are only in Italian WWII military topics (and at that: the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...) also he copies text that Generalmesse wrote directly into other articles

I'm just noting here that I've read the evidence but have not checked diffs. I'll sort through contrib logs to evaluate plausibility of this being one person. It seems possible so far; further results will come later. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 05:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

added User:Regione. Reasons: Manipulating the same articles as the above; with the same fascist propaganda bemoans the same "anti-Italian bias" (example) and so on... --noclador (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
added User:Ronpillao a dormant user who comes back to life today and continues the same nationalist propaganda crusade where the today blocked User:Generalmesse left off. Generalmesse editRonpillao edit(talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked User:Ronpillao 24 hours for violating 3RR at First Battle of El Alamein. EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Saintsarecomingthrough clearly another sock to go on were User:Ronpillao left off tonight. --noclador (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The main page at User:Romaioi indicates that I have gone to the trouble to create a main page for myself. All the other accused sock puppets, with the exception of one, have not done this. The fact that a User:Romaioi main page exists, does not fit the pattern of the rest of the accused. Romaioi (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to have disclosure of the Generalmesse IP disclosed here. This in itself will show that we are not the same person. If the IPs do not match then there is no case. Romaioi (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • none of the points of evidence put forward above involve me as either User:Romaioi or the IP 123.2.111.245 (IP number discussed below). Check my edits closely; chronology, content, citsations, and the real number of citations. noclador claims above that I made "the usual ones: Tobruk, El Alamein,...". Well if you check the revision histories of the Tobruk related articles Battle of Gazala, Operation Brevity, and Operation Battleaxe, I have made no contributions just mentioned in this sentence. Also as IP 23.2.111.245, made a sum total of tiny edits to fix spelling to the Siege of Tobruk (refer revision history link). Whats the crime in that? noclador has lied in his very first accusation. Moreover, I have only made a few contributions to the 2nd battle of El Alamein (discussed below along with my citations).Romaioi (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Of the references disclosed by myself at talk, you will find that two of them were first (most likely) introduced by me and none of the other names in question, with the exception of IP 123.2.111.245 (see below for infomration concerning that IP). Check the patterns in detail. They do not match. Romaioi (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If one were to read the my full discussions at User talk:Romaioi particularly the section on the Julia division, it should be evident that my view is not pro-fascist. noclador is arguing that I am pro-fascist through his belief that I generalmesse, as he stated to me: you have massively reinforced the suspicion that you are in fact a sock of User:Generalmesse. Now I suspect that the checkuser has indicated that I am not User:Generalmesse, but noclador has persisted with his twisting arguments.
Rather, at User talk:Romaioi , while talking to User:Cplakidas I stated clearly that my interest in WWII history was the plight of the soldiers and civilians which I also stated to noclador . There is evidence there that I am in fact anti war. It can also bee seen in these discussions with User:Cplakidas that we compromising on what was correct figure for the strength of a division.
Now, I have only posted on such topics for less then one month (actually it was less than 2 weeks! - enough to have committed a crime according to noclador - has anyone noted this?). And in that brief time I have concentrated on the legacy of bias against Italian soldiers, predominantly at where I expanded on an earlier version of the section from another wiki page (that was not in the right location for it). It appears that this section of work is the main basis (along with my discussions at User talk:Romaioi) for which noclador believes me to be User:Generalmesse. Now I have explained below the chronology of my edits here and have pointed out where noclador has mislead you all. Note that the section has been modified by others since my expansion in early June.
Furthermore, if my contributions and edits are examined thoroughly, it will be seen that my comments in the edit summaries that I tend to focus on verifiable citations. And, as I am repeating continuously in this defense, I have sought only to post material of a verifiable nature – and the citations I have provided are all from English texts which are clearly not pro-fascist (and some are from websites). When the nature of all my contributions and their characteristic of presenting cited information are considered how can I be considered to be like the pro-fascist posters that you believe to be sock puppetting? Please do not focus solely on the minute and manipulated information that noclador has presented. I believe, in light of my disclosure and arguments that I deserve to be treated with good faith. Currently, that good faith has not been extended towards me.
Rather than go to extent of deleting (I actually believe it to be vandalism – seeing that it was a fully cited section) the section which offended noclador attempting to tar and feather me, I believe that good faith could have been shown and an discussion page on the topic would have been a more polite option.
Karriges, believes that what I have written has a place where it is (discussed below). Are we to label him a sock too because he has supported its inclusion.
Now, if we may, in addressing my big sin of pointing out that Italians were not cowards and that their involvement has a legacy of being largely ignored in English texts, lets please focus on the main sources that I have been citing:
I will quote relevant fragments form the first 3 pages of: Walker, Ian W. (2003). Iron Hulls, Iron Hearts; Mussolini's Elite Armoured Divisions in North Africa. Ramsbury: The Crowood Press. ISBN 1-86126-646-4..
In Britain and the wider English-speaking world almost everyone is familiar with the Desert War fought in North Africa between June 1940 and May 1943. They have all herd of the famous Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery and his 8th Army. They are equally familiar with his legendary opponent Field Marshall Erwin Rommel and his Deutches Africa Korps (DAK). The epic encounter between these two rivals an their two forces that took place at El Alamein is viewed as one of the key battles of World War II. There are countless book on the North African campaign, ranging in scope from academic studies of the grand strategies through to personal memoirs. In their entirety these works manage to touch on almost every conceivable aspect of the conflict.
In spite of this, I hope to offer an entirely different perspective on this familiar campaign of World War II. This will come form a focus on the hitherto neglected Italian involvement. In all previous accounts in English, the Italians have either been ignored completely or afforded little more than an acknowledgement of their presence – yet they made up the bulk of the axis forces involved in this campaign, a fact not yet reflected in existing accounts. They are sometimes allowed a place during the first phase of the campaign as Britain’s only opponents, but the arrival of Rommel in early 1941 quickly relegates them to obscurity thereafter.....In terms of their influence on fighting, however, they are usually dismissed in a few paragraphs that primarily concentrate on describing their many deficiencies. Thereafter, they are usually ignored.....In Britain pople are familiar with the war time propaganda images of endless lines of Italian prisoners...This strong visual image was reinforced by contemporary newsreel and newspaper accounts of Italian military incompetence and cowardice, often involving the use of racial stereotypes. This image was often deliberately contrasted with German military efficiency and ferocity. This produced a strong British prejudice against the Italians very early in the war, which has consistently been reinforced in most histories produced since its end....All this has left a powerful legacy in English-speaking accounts, in which the Italians are widely seen as a nation of dilettantes, devoid of military skills and entirely lacking courage. It high is time, however, that this view was re-examined to reveal what, if any, truth lies behind it. It is only by doing so that we will be able to assess what impact the Italians actually had on this campaign. ....The process really requires a complete re-evaluation of the Italian economy and the political and military systems......
Surprise, surprise, some of my, "Romaioi’s", words and assertions in User talk:Romaioi are similar to those of Ian A Walker.
Ian Walker’s perspective, reflects my perspective ( I am a citizen of an English speaking country so I think I would have some perspective on this). Now, if Ian Walker was to register a username and post on this topic, will he be accused of being Generalmesse too? Is he also to be labeled pro-fascist because of this? Last time I checked, he was a British historian/diplomat PS. I believe that I (romaioi) am the first to cite this book here – you might want to cross check that with the references made by the other accused.
I doubt that noclador has read this book. I am sure if he did, being an from the Italian military, he may feel somewhat slighted and would probably feel inclined to inform the authors of their misconceptions.
I also cited: Bierman, John (2003) . War without hate : the desert campaign of 1940-1943 (New edition ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0142003947. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Bierman and Smith do not focus on the Italians in the manner that Walker does. But they mention the Italians, non-disparagingly, and the action of particular units throughout the book. They have a chapter dedicated to the Folgore. This is one of the sources of my citations on the Foglore, Ariete, German Ramke divisions on the Second Battle of El Alamein. As can be seen from the revision history, my modifications were minor, mainly in the form of providing names of divisions, small edits and introducing citations. Is this not what an editor is supposed to do? I did not make contributions to the .
I do not believe that I was the first to cite this book. It is a best seller, so why would it be surprising that more than one contributor would do so. Perhaps some cross check should be done here too. Once again, these are British and not pro-fascist
I suggest above two books are purchased and read by those who study the North African campaign. I regard them as new generation WWII history books.
I also cited Bauer, Eddy (2000) . The History of World War II (Revised edition ed.). London, UK: Orbis Publishing. ISBN 1-85605-552-3. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).
I like this book (the original is several volumes). It is, in my opinion purely objective, sticking to facts and figures and actions. It makes no derogatory assertions about one nation or another. And it attempted to highlight the adversities faced by all sides. And it highlights where divisional units on both sides performed well, militarily. It is how a book should be written – some would think it dry. Bauer was a Swiss General.
do I need to say that it is must read?
I have cited it ubiquitously, including in my contributions to the 2nd battle of El Alamein.
As with Walker's book, I believe that I (romaioi) am the first to cite this book here – you might want to cross check that with the references made by the other accused.
This (what I have illustrated above) is the kind of information I have been presenting. I doubt any reasonable person will see that it fits the same patterns of those that I am accused of being (particular seeing that, as noclador has stated to me, they are citing fascist content).
noclador has used, somewhere, my contributions to the El Alamein battles as proof that I am Generalmesse. I don’t see how any reasonable person could think this. Examine the revision histories and see for yourself. And check my sources.
I have consistently quoted phrases from these books to in my contributions, while attempting not to embellish too much in order to help the reader see that the information comes from these authors, not me. Last time I checked, this how everyone was supposed to write. Even in the in question (you will need to examine earlier versions to get to my expansion) which seams to have sparked noclador accusations, the wording largely comes from these sources. I would hope that the examiner of this defiense would also appreciate that I left in much of the original wording (i.e. that of the originator). After all, my goal was to expand on it, note replace it wholesale. Seeing that it therefore had a legacy of the original writer’s words (who may or may not be a sock) is this why the WRONG assumption has been made that I am also a sock?
I also quoted General Alexander as pointing out that Italian units were fighting better than their German counterparts towards the end of the Tunisia campaign. I am quoting a British General (the source was Bauer’s book, page 428 – remember the book was first introduced by me) – how does this make me pro-fascist and likely to be Generalmesse?
Now, I must ask concering these three books that I have cited, if the facts and arguments presented in these books are worthy of international publication, why are they not ok here?
Moreover, if someone else in this big wide world, even in a place like Australia with over 1 million ethnic Italians, who has access to the same bookshops and libraries and apparently stated similar (but stylistically different) views to the authors of these books ( which I doubt is the case with the other accused) and even myself, does that automatically make them me? Even though a close look will show that the patterns do not match, to noclador, who has examined only part of it, has presumably not read the sources and I believe has clearly manipulated my comments (discussed below), it does.
Check the IP’s. Check the quality of the citations that I made compared to the other accused and check the number of contributions I made. Also check how long its have been since I have made significant contributions. The patterns to not match the evidence (poorly researched accusations, in fact') that is being thrown against me. The fact that I didn’t know about the 4 tildas a month ago should also be a dead give away.
Also, it seams that if you are of Italian descent, you are automatically guilty of unreasoned bias - my contributions will show this not to the case.
I am not Generalmesse or any of the other accused socks.
Romaioi (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Added user:Topmalohouse canvassing for support for this editors campaign on User talk:DagosNavy (DagosNavy has been canvassed before and doesn't co-operate). Diff here:

Added user:Historyneverrepeats edited canvassing for support for this editors campaign on User talk:DagosNavy (DagosNavy has been canvassed before and doesn't co-operate). Contribution history fits the pattern of the banned editors activities on the Dirty War. Justin talk 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Addendum. See editor refers to message canvassing by other suspect sockpuppet. Justin talk 10:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

  • In an edit summary, User:Saintsarecomingthrough announced his intention to recruit meatpuppets from the comandosupremo forum. I looked at the forums at http://comandosupremo.com but did find any recruiting post. Also, that web site appears fairly serious, so he might not have had any success.
  • As to whether User:Historyneverrepeats could be a sock, he appears to a be a bona-fide long-time contributor and I didn't see him making any abusive edits. It also seems that User:Topmalohouse is a regular editor who works on military history. In this comment he identifies himself as David Aldea. An author by that name has published a book about the Falklands War. How we managed to get an edit war involving both El Alamein and the Falklands is still a mystery.
  • It's possible that there is a regular content dispute at First Battle of El Alamein besides the abusive sockpuppetry, and we should avoid tarring people unnecessarily. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I think you're wrong and if you look closer you'll see what I mean. Did you read the comments by those editors on User talk:DagosNavy. They clearly link those two editors and the sockpuppets Generalmesse and Ronpillao - one refers to me reverted his edits. The link between the Falklands and the First Battle of El Alamein is simply that this editor sees his mission to prove that the Italians and the Argentines were "good fighters". Look closer at their contributions as well, they're very similar to teh pattern of this editor. Finally, as soon as one sock is exposed another arises - I think this guy has a ton of sockpuppets ready, as soon as one is blocked, he brings out another. This isn't a content dispute either, its an attempt by an editor to force his biased POV into the article, the counter arguments are fairly clear with some meticulous research on the Talk Page of the El Alamein article. Justin talk 14:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
as for EdJohnston comment that Topmalohouse and Historyneverrepeats are not socks:
Topmalohouse (who has 6 edits in total) says: "Me dicen que estoy cometiendo vandalismo pero si ves mis contribuciones,..." "No se porque un tal Noclador ha decido hacer la guerra contra mi en cuanto a mis ediciones sobre las fuerzas terrestres alemanas en norte africa y en el frente ruso." Me, I do, my, me, my - this are his words - but were are his edits??? Topmalohouse has done not a single edit in articles about "norte africa" or "el frente ruso" but Ronpillao, Flylikeadodo RadioBerlin Generalmesse Steyr2007 MedagliaD'Oro Drunkgeneral Regione have... Topmalohouse = is part of the aforementioned sock circus and that without a doubt!
Historyneverrepeats claims to be a a published author?? Come on, he can say any name he wants... I doubt that a published author will resort to massive socket puppetry to manipulate wikipedia. Anyway: Want proof that Historyneverrepeats is a sock of the above? Here it comes:
Topmalohouse leaves his comments on DagosNavy talkpage at:
Historyneverrepeats comes back to life after a 6 month hiatus and his first edit is:
OK, I see that Topmalohouse admits to usage of multiple accounts here: Mira, si he cometido un pecado, es del tener varias cuentas para editar, pero pense que eso no era un crimen... (Look, if I've committed a sin, it is to have various accounts for editing, but I didn't think that was a crime..).
Since Generalmesse is now blocked for a month and has been unable to edit since 12:33, 27 June 2008, assuming that Topmalohouse is his sock and was editing on 28 June that represents block evasion. (We don't need to see evidence of abuse by Topmalohouse, just any editing at all while the main account is blocked). I've blocked Topmalohouse and Historyneverrepeats one month each. (They were both notified about the ANI thread but did not respond). EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


I added the IP 123.2.111.245 Reason: from this edits here it is clear that it is User:Romaioi IP edit Romaioi edit furthermore this IP was the one copyediting the large pro-Italian paragraph into Italian Army 1 taken from Military history of Italy during World War II, a paragraph writeen just hours earlier by Romaioi 2, but Romaioi claims: I expanded it from a “poorly” (and largely uncited) written version I found under Italian Army some time ago... he found it there before he himself copied it there???
Also: Romaioi say: "It is a topic that requires addressing because of the long legacy of English texts to have a largely dismissive, non-factual, non-"NPOV" towards Italian soldiers.", "It’s objective was to point out that Italian soldiers of the era were not cowards, as depicted in too many English texts.", "I am have recently made contributions on Italy and its military in WWII and Istrian exodus etc is because they are topics are not covered very well in English texts - which my language (and what is covered is usually in disparaging/dismissive tones and not based on the facts)." "As a scientist,...", "My skeptisim comes from the tendency of authors of English texts (particularly the older ones) not have done their homework regarding the Itatalian contributions and other minor powers, literally. Further, they tend to be almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement." It is 1:1 what Generalmesse is saying and the claim with the scientist... oh dear, yesterday he wanted to be a published author,... --noclador (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
PS: Both IP's are from Australia. --noclador (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The above passage (passages now) is highly manipulative. The comment that noclador claims is mine, has been modified. It looks to me put together from several sources, and frankly, comes from a past conversation under User talk:Romaioi:
"My skeptisim comes from the tendency of authors of English texts (particularly the older ones) not have done their homework regarding the Itatalian contributions and other minor powers, literally. Further, they tend to be almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement."
Then noclador says this is "1:1 what Generalmesse is saying". I don't know what Generalmesse is saying, so please disclose here, seeing that the time was taken dig through some of my "Chats" to dig out the dirt. This has already taken much more of my time and energy than I could allow for.
Let me point out that if you read, for example, Ian Walker's, Iron Hearts Iron Hulls, you will find several passages like this in the introduction and conclusions. The book is available to purchase to everyone on the planet and has been out for 5 years. I doubt I am the only one to have read it.
I implore administrators to view my assertions at User talk:Romaioi and User talk:Noclador and note that my contributions to Misplaced Pages have all been verified by citations - from English sources, not the fascist sources that noclador claims. My IP's are from Perth, Australia. Last week I was in Brisbane for work (and did not contribute to any topics). If an administrator contacts me on a private channel I can verify my locations and my identity. I have already admitted at User talk:Romaioi that I am of Italian descent. I do not know how this is 1:1 Generalmesse. I have not read the passages. It appears from the conclusions that he is from South America. Frankly I do not have the time. Yes, I am a scientist. So what? Should I apologise for that? My PhD was in physics and chemistry - I had already admitted this previously. If I told you my name, you could Google it. But now I feel that I and my family may receive personal and defamatory attacks. I will be contacting my Lawyer tomorrow concerning this matter. This is not a joke and its becoming very personal. Being that it should be a professional environment, there are liability issues involved. What I am being exposed to is anything but professional.
At any rate the evidence is highly circumstantial. Until I started to reply today, there was no evidence on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) pertaining to my username! Now I have discoved this manipulative garb. This now becoming a joke. EdJohnston states above that we should stop unfairly tarring people. Well that’s exactly what is happening to me!!!!!
Regarding IP 123.2.111.245, I disclosed this to be ME at User talk:123.2.111.245, note the date and the content of conversations (May 27th, 2008). Why has this been conveniently overlooked? I did not really know how to use Misplaced Pages back then. I used this before I registered as romiaoi. And afterwards when I forgot to log on, I naturally would have contributed as IP 123.2.111.245 (being at the same physical location). Either way, view the content changes that I made as IP 123.2.111.245! They are predominantly minor edits etc. Please note that noclador assumptions as per this passage:
"large pro-Italian paragraph into Italian Army 1 taken from Military history of Italy during World War II, a paragraph writeen just hours earlier by Romaioi 2, but Romaioi claims: I expanded it from a “poorly” (and largely uncited) written version I found under Italian Army some time ago... he found it there before he himself copied it there???"
are wrong. There was an original version of it under Italian Army, as I stated at User talk:Romaioi. The revision history is - edit made at 03:17, 1 June 2008. I copied it to Military history of Italy during World War II, as I said. Then later, when I was finished modifying it further, I copied it back to Italian Army. Note that I said at User talk:Romaioi that I kept it under Italian Army because I did not want to annoy the originator of it. (It has since been removed from Italian Army). You will also see that this is where I borrowed the sentence fragment almost always grossly and unfairly dismissive of Italian involvement (for a personal conversation on my talk page) that noclador inserted above in his attack against me. Moreover, in the Revsion history for Military history of Italy during World War II My editor notes state: modified from another article (Italian Army). This indicates full disclosure on my part!...... The location of where the original passage that I expanded was there right under noclador's nose to see in the history of revision for Italian Army. Yet he decided not to point out the truth to you all in attempting to implicate me. So what else is he lying about? If you check noclador's comments on this page pertaining to this particular passage, you should not that noclador he has been inconsistent in regards to who he claims copied that passage, and whom from. It all sounds frivilous to me.
Also note, that whilst noclador claims that this modified contribution, currently under is revisionist fascist propganda, please note that User:Kirrages believes that the passage has a place(). Once again, note the source of the citations that I have contributed.
So let me ask. Does noclador have some other agenda? I would like to know what it is.
Note that noclador has also gone to the trouble of extracting an earlier, relatively INCOMPLETE, version of what I said at User talk:Romaioi in order to make the dirt look its worst!
This is not what I signed up for. noclador is trying very hard to incriminate me as being Generalmesse, yet he did not bother to see that the link to me, Romaioi admiting that I was IP 123.111.245 User talk:123.2.111.245. noclador is being manipulative and has been spurred on my assertions, which were intended to highlight my sincerity, but rather have been used against me.
Can the administrators please read my contributions closely, take into account my assertions at the above mentioned talk pages, and note that my contributions have all been supported by English text citations. I stand by my contributions. I believe I can make them with some authority, as yes, I do have an educated background, and I have been studying to topic of the involvement of minor powers in WWII for over 10 years as a hobby. In light of the historical legacy concerning these topics in English texts, I feel that these are topics worth considering. Please also note, that I have only made considerable numbers of contributions for a little over a month. I do have a day job and a family, so as my time is constrained I have not yet had to opportunity to contribute to a wider range of topics, let alone be intimately familiar with the administrative workings of the encyclopedia.
Further, can you please source the precise location of the IP's? I am certain you will note that the locations are different. You should at least be able isolate the domain down to the individual cities. Actually, suburbs. Use some advanced version of http://www.ip-adress.com/, or something like it. Who would have the energy to run around from location to location in order to write from multiple nic's? Surely, anyone who did such a thing would not be taking things seriously. Let me also ask, would I be this angry about the matter if the accusations were true?
Once again, please read my contributions closely. And if the administrators could open up private channels of communication with me I would like to disclose my identity in confidence. Please give me an email or phone number to contact. I do not want to disclose mine here in fear of personal attacks.
Frankly, this is now at the point where it is defamation. I would like a retraction and an apology.
Romaioi (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


Note that the large passage above(now above) was being written before this latest supposed revelation by my accusor here. The passage below (now above) addresses this. If the chronology of the cross links are examined it can be seen that I provided full discolsure that I was IP 123.2.111.245 when I signed up was Romaioi. See User talk:123.2.111.245 and User talk:Romaioi I was speaking with Raven in Orbit about it. Surely a third person can see the sincerity in my posts? Read the content. This is not a circus, as my accusor puts it. This is a witch hunt!!!!! Can someone in authority please put a stop to this???????????? There were no anti-Romaioi accusations on this page before today. They only appeared once I requested a retraction and an apology.
Romaioi (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The link noclador has provided above is proof that a little over a month ago, I did not know how to sign in, nor how to sign a post with "4tilda's". There I was trying to mannually insert a signature to follow the form of Raven in Orbit's who was kind enough to give me some pointers.
It is interesting that someone who did not know these things a month ago was able to log in as multiple users and type away for all those months (and years?). In case you didn't guess and wanted to use it to implicate me, that was sarcasm. How is the witch hunt going?
Romaioi (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, don't just look at the last lines, read the whole passage at User_talk:123.2.111.245 and note the sentences in the middle: "I have registered the username Romaioi, as the create account page states "You are recommended to choose a username that is not connected to you." But I notice that some users appear to be using their names." Does this read like someone with lots of experience here? Moreover, does it read like someone who is trying to be deceitful? The whole user talk reaks as though I did not know ho things worked. I believe it is becoming plainly apparent (to a reasonable mind) that my accusor is the one who is being deceitful. Romaioi (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Proof again of non-malicious intent on my part this link on my home page, User:Romaioi, highlighting my contribution statistics for all to see. Not that I have made 2 contributions User_talk:123.2.111.245. What else do I need to highlight to illustrate that I showed full disclosure from the beginning?


  • Disclosure from Romaioi: if my above passages appear in any way emotional, I would hope that it is considered that it is not a pleasant experience to log on (by pure chance today, mind you) and find that you have been accussed of things you had nothing to do with. Administrators know they can can open the avenue for direct communication for identity confirmation. Yet again, check my contributory statements and my citations/sources - I suggest that my sources a read. Its all there. I have been providing lots of information in good faith and this person (my accusor) is being allowed to manipulate my every word. I would suggest, given the degree of manipulation by my accusor, and the extent to which this has become a tar and feather show, that my accusor should be reprimanded for his/her behaviour. Romaioi (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)



Conclusions
  • You could probably make a decent case that some of these accounts are sockpuppets (or meatpuppets, I suppose) of each other. I offer no opinion on that since my activity level at the moment is low and I don't want to jump head-first into a sockpuppetfest, with all the fun that brings. What is clear, however, is that none of these accounts are Giovanni Giove - they don't talk or act like him, and these articles were not within his area of interest. – Steel 17:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As someone familiar with GG, I have to agree with Steel. This isn't him. Not his style, or his area of interest. Given that we appear to be dealing with a whole laundry basket full of hosiery here, it's more likely in my mind is that this is an extension of Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Brunodam. Reasoning: a) Strong Italian nationalist POV, shared by Bruno; b) Bruno's history of socking ; c) Strong interest in WWII and the Italian role in it, shared by Bruno .
    If there are any IP's in the long list of users above beginning 4.231... that'll seal it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest renaming this report to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Generalmesse, since the connection to Giovanni Giove has been questioned, and there's not enough research yet to connect with Brunodam. (Brunodam has not shown any interest in the Falklands War). Generalmesse is most likely a South American of Italian descent. Any supporters for this idea? EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To be honest I don't think anyone involved is at all concerned with whether its renamed or not, the frustration is with the disruption caused to the articles. Justin talk 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no point in renaming this. I made a spreadsheet for the contribs of all users except Giovanni Giove himself. Since GG finished editing after a couple of users began editing, the possibility for an overlap analysis exists, but if other users are sockpuppets of one another then they'll be blocked regardless. Overall I think the trend of sockpuppets is pretty compelling. It's weird how some accounts disappear for many months then suddenly reappear, all interested in the same fairly narrow POV. It's more likely to be sockpuppetry than meatpuppetry. The log entry of Generalmesse creating some other account is also virtually irrefutable evidence that those two are sockpuppets. I will send this to checkuser if it hasn't already gone there, but if checkuser comes up as a question mark, I think there's enough behavioral evidence to block virtually everyone. Before doing that, I would need to review the data again to isolate any individual accounts that might not be sockpuppets.
I see no reason to change the name of this page. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)