User:Kubura/case Giove

Here will go the material for admins on the case of Giovanni Giove.

Giove's behaviour
Hi, Isotope23. I still do not dare to do anything regarding article Jakov Mikalja. Still, we're having problem with the behaviour of user Giovanni Giove. Besides removing of references and ignoring the data given on discussion page, and pushing his "stories" (that were "beaten" by removed and ignored data), now he's trying to hide the history of his italian iredentist nationalist (and anti-Croat) behaviour on Wikipedia. Then, I got the information of user Zenanarh (on my talk page). When I looked at Zenanarh's talk page, I saw more of Giove's iredentist nationalism.... First, as usual, he accused his opponent as "nationalist". With no argument, he just names someone as "nationalist". Then, he writes his italian expansionist and "croat-denialist" ideas. And, even worse, Giovanni Giove's etiquetting/discreditation behaviour. He etiquetted that user as some sockpuppet and. That user maybe is, maybe is not someone's sockpuppet, but  only admins should put those tags on someone's userpages. But, Giove allows himself a lot of things. He allows himself too much. My words may seem heavy, but someone should finally look at Giovanni Giove's contributions. As first, take a look at his insisting on toponyms in Italian, instead on local language, Croatian, on the Republic of Dubrovnik. This is en.wiki, so, if no English term, local term is used. But, Giove fiercely defends his (reverts everytime, many times till now). Examples are numerous, it's enough to look at my discussions with him on the talk pages (Republic of Dubrovnik, Jakov Mikalja, possibly some other articles, these are the most frequent). Some other users have seen his removing of talkpage content. They can tell you themselves what experiences they had, I'll tell you mine case. The recent case is on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja. See this change. There he has removed the data that show Giove's ideological attitudes (his burst of ... anti-Croat attitudes..., see for yourself.). The message was Giovanni Giove's message from italian Wikipedia. I had to put that on en.wiki, because if I can't prove him anything with the arguments, than I have to show the others his attitudes, so the interested parties can understand him better. After an user asked him to explain his behaviour, he again removed (second revert) that, together with the request. After that, his next contribution showed his "game of playing dumb" (ignoring of posted messages with references). . As he said ...Can you present some original documents of the time enforcing Mikalja... (I've told that on the talkpage before). Than, he has, for the third time in a day, reverted, removing that way the message that an other user posted later. He also used words like "bullshit", calling other user's messages as "vandalism". Than, Giovanni Giove is so "productive" in his reverts (without proper answer on opponents' arguments), as well as in his POV (I allow myself to say this after all my experiences with him) messages and contributions, that I'm simply can't "catch" him (to report all his suspicious contributions - it's too many for one person to check all that); why I'm dealing with his "work" on few articles, I got a message from other user that has complaints on his behaviour (see above). Here's recent removed contribution. That was his message on Italian wikipedia. Giove's attitude Hi, everybody. Here's Giove's message on it.wiki from July 30, 2006. I give it here, to show interested users Giove's attitude towards Croats and Croatia. . What have you said there? "...: La nazione croata è un'invenzione dell'800. Prima non esisteva: non avevate nemmeno una lingua vostra. Ve la siete dovuta inventare a partire da uno dei vostri dialetti...". The translation: "The Croat nation is an invention from 1800's. Before it hasn't existed: you (Croats, translators' note) neither had your own language. You (Croats, translators' note) had to invent it from one of your dialects...". In the same message there's an explicit anti-Croat attitude (though, it referres to Croatian War of Independence): "Ti faccio da ultimo presente inolre che hai elimanato tutti riferimenti ai crimini di guerra croati.. "... that you have removed all references to Croatian war criminals". Giove mentioned general Ante Gotovina, althought Gotovina is still under process. And even worse, he "attacked" me for removing that false reference (interesting, he hasn't mentioned any Serb war criminals at all, like Milan Martić and Milan Babić). Sorry, Isotope23, for being too long, but Giove's behaviour is frustrating  for others. This is going for almost whole year, and is getting worse. We're getting nowhere with him. I'm (in fact, we, others are also trying) trying to talk to him, discuss, but he's getting more impudent. I've narrowed my area of contribution to few articles because of him. I've engaged whole myself in order to find proper references to prove him something, but he simply ignores and belittles that (how do you call that, when someone ignores and belittles certain sources, just because they are from some other country? I won't wrote that word -ism here.). Kubura 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed several times a personal attack by Kubura in Giacomo Micaglias talk page. He has introduced comments tottaly off topic, just a piece of a comment I wrote in the Italian Wiki, with the aim to start flames against me (BTW outside the proper contest). The Micaglia dispute shall be continued on the relatve page, not here. Kubura has no right to introduce personal attacks on a talk page. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone tried dispute resolution? This looks like a situation that needs a request for comment... From the looks of it there is a large amount of incivility, POV pushing and general misbehavior by numerous editors surrounding Dalmatia related articles.  Editors shouldn't be using talkpages to discuss another editor's actions on another language wiki.  This really, really needs to go in a WP:RFC.--Isotope23 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This'll go to RfC. Till then, will you, please, Isotope23, prevent Giove's slashing of other users' comments? Recently, I've asked him on the talkpage of the article about Jakov Mikalja to answer some things, but instead of answering, he "cut" my message, removing the parts where I warn him that he hasn't proved my arguments wrong. See. I'm trying to make a dispute resolution before further steps, but Giovanni Giove's cutting any such try. Kubura 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing according to procedure of dispute resolutions. I've sent him the message on his talkpage few minutes ago, with all the remarks regarding his behaviour on the talkpage of article Jakov Mikalja. The message contains all references, organized according to the sender (FYI, others involved 've sent there to Giove over 40 (forty!!) explanating and warning messages regarding various matters discussed in the article and his behaviour). Sincerely, Kubura 14:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That 40 are useless, if Kubura just ignore references. The dispute is over, references and the article itself are clear. BTW, Kubura is known as a troll, not me. Anyway if u have a suggestion how to manage the exausthing conflicts with User Kubura, just tell me. Tx.--Giovanni Giove 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would stronly suggest you pursue some form of dispute resolution. Maybe a request for comment.--Isotope23 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Giove's behaviour
Shall we treat this as a kind of harassment and/or discrediting? Giovanni Giove put a tag "suspected sockpuppet of user Afrika paprika" (Afrika paprika is a heavily compromised user on en.wiki) on the userpage of the user Zenanarh and. I've looked if there was/is any request for checkuser regarding user Zenanarh, and I haven't seen any, neither opened case (Requests_for_checkuser), neither closed case. (Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Zenanarh). I thought that only admins can put such tags on user pages (admins are some kind of policemen and judges on wiki, ordinary user can't allow themselves everything). So, I've removed that tag. Will you, please, warn him not to that, and to leave that to admins? If Giovanni Giove thinks that certain user is a sockpuppet, why doesn't he starts the regular procedure? But, as I've seen above (Requests for checkuser), he didn't (but he still allowed himself to stick around those tags, which are heavy accusation). Thanks for the understanding, Kubura 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Afrika Pakrika... I'll take a look. By the way, those tags are not restricted to admin use.  Admins are not policemen/judges per se; they just have access to some additional tools that other editors do not.  Adminship doesn't confer any special privileges though.--Isotope23 13:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks a bit stale... The tag was added on the 17th and the editor in question made no attempt to remove or contest it from what I see. Ideally the editor adding this sort of tag would request a WP:RFCU or WP:SOCK investigation, but I don't see anything here that requires an admin intervention.--Isotope23 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be treated as provocation ...or revisionist propaganda. The same provocation would be something like making a link to "Posen" instead of Poznan, or "Straßburg" instead of "Strasbourg". The article as whole is for speedy deletion, see talkpage. Sincerely, Kubura 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From User_talk:Giovanni_Giove.

Why such words?
Stop using words like "your personal opinion". Don't undervaluate other users' contributions, just because they oppose your contributions. Especially if opposers contributions are argumented. My contributions aren't my opinions, I've referenced them. See how many external references are in my messages on the talk pages (mostly on the talk pages of the articles Jakov Mikalja and Republic of Dubrovnik). You are avoiding procedures and playing dumb. Read well the sources I've posted. Don't lie by calling such contributions as "personal opinions". Links are there. Such ignorance is forbidden behaviour. You've said: "Your personal opinions are meaningless here.". Beside your blatant lies, now you're even more belittleing opposers' contributions. Consider this as you're being warned about your behaviour by tenth time (at least): on the talk page of the article Jakov Mikalja: My messages:I gave you explanations and warned you that you shouldn't push certain info just like that on 5th April, on 8th April,  on 12th April,  on 31st May (giving right also to Plantago's remarks, but - you've childishly removed  the line "...Giovanni Giove's changes" on 31st May). Again I patiently gave you explanation with links and REMINDER  and  and  on 1st June. Patiently I've tried to explain you language and dialect matters (you have terrible knowledge about Croatian language) on 10th June. I've warned you about your bad behaviour (belittleing the works of small nation) on 10th June, even more patiently giving you new references in your mother tongue  on 10th June (but you childishly - more like spoiled brat, you say "it doesn't help", very same day .). I still tried to explain you something same, 10th June. Again I tried to explain you something, warning you again on your persistent ignorant behaviour on 14th June, with AGAIN posting you the links that are arguments (you haven't proven wrong)  on 14th June. Again, I remind you where is certain data posted and more precise request  on 20th June, where I've asked you to give us answer on some things (instead answering, you childishly removed the part of my request?????  on 21st June, in the part where I point out that you haven't proven my arguments wrong), so I warned you. I've restored that part on on 23th June. Again, I've warned you on your behaviour on 26th June. Plantago's messages: User Plantago also warned you and gave you explanations on 24th May, but you've childishly said "end of discussion", "I've referenced"  on 24th May. After you message showing total ignorance, Plantago warned you again on 24th May. He gave you another explanation on 29th May (I believe that message  from 27th May, from user 89.172.194.7 was from user Plantago; it wasn't, Plantago denies it ). But, you did even worse. You've removed the message that wasn't vandalism, playing some kind of sheriff-prosecutor-judge with explanation "Removed comments of a banned user. (who are you to do and that and fire accusations like a gunman??). Plantago again pointed you where you make mistakes about language matters and what you should do on 5th June, and also tried to give you an information  on 6th June. Plantago warns you about your behaviour ("are you on some kind of crusade?" and patiently asks you to discuss on talk page  and  on 6th June. And even more patiently, Plantago tries to explain you thing again  on 6th June. Mir Harven's messages:User Mir Harven got into discussion with warning you on your behaviour and ignorance on 11th June (but you've childishly react,  same day). Dr.Gonzo's messages: User Dr.Gonzo joined the discussion with warning you on your behaviour and ignorance on 14th June. Gonzo warned you again on your deleting of Croatian references on 18th June. Your reactions (besides some mentioned above): But, you've played dumb on 9th April (but despite that, I've patiently gave you explanation  on 12th April). But, you got worse, you've ignored my explanations, with persistent POV-ing on 24th May, and  on 26th May. After, you inserted a message totally out of context (we were talking about something else, although, on some other pages you've told something else) on 31st May, and showed your ignorance of data given in references again  on 31st May. Again, you ignored all language matters that you've been previously informed and warned about by posting on 2nd June (you obviously do not read talk pages neither external references where you've been pointed to). Then, you've done some strange contribution on 6th June (what was that supposed to mean: "Micaglia->Micaglio, Mikalja->Mikasa, definiva slavo->definitiva salvo"? Childish work?) Still, you again have shown your childish and ignorantish behaviour. You again shown ignoring of others on 17th June (Can you present some original documents of the time enforcing Mikalja) (what do you want us to do? To rip the original pages off and bring them to you?). Even worse, later you've removed  the warning that Mir Harven wrote to you on 19th June, again calling counterarguments as "personal attacks". And again, you've shown that you don't read at all the references that others've posted over  FORTY  (40!!!) times before on 19th June, showing racist attituded toward Croatian sources (Provide a source to show that Micalja was used during his life....  deliberated falsfication that Croats do against the Italian persnolities...). You've persisted in your selfish POV-izing behaviour, by calling my contributions as "personal opinions", as well as behaviour of belitteing the others (your...opinions are meaningless here) on 24th June, again on insisting of a term that evades the use of the term Croatian as sole. A reminder:Seeing that we're getting nowhere, and that you gave wrong information about your attitudes about Croats, I've posted one of your previous messages on 17th June, so the other parties included in discussion know whome they are dealing with. It's not personal attack, it's not discrediting, these were the things you wrote . User Dr. Gonzo restored it after your deletion on 17th June, as well as Jesuislafete on 18th June , I restored the deletion on 19th June with few additions. Jesuislafeter restored it on 21st June with explanation ("There is nothing here attacking you personally, it is a justifiable explanation and proof of your behavior"). Your hiding of your true intents: But, you've deleted the material on 17th June under childish excuse ("personal attacks"), deleting even the code for bolding of the book in Italian, as well as another user's message. You've redeleted it again the same day and on 18th June  with use of bad language ("stop the bullshit"),  and on 19th June. You did the redeletion again, on 21st June. Our patience is running out. Your bad behaviour is going for almost a year, on this article we are arguing almost three months, only on the talk page, I'm not mentioning the arguing through the main text of the article and through the comments given, when making changes. Kubura 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Find something better to say than "reverting vandalism." I'll report you if you keep using deliberate wording like this against people who edit wikipedia pages to try to make them better, and not push a POV. I have noticed you have removed many parts of Zadar's history, especially to do with Croatia and it's union with Hungary. You removed the references to the early kings, and then go as far as to call the arrival of the croats as an "invasion," when they have already been migrating in the area for at least a couple of centuries. stop trying to push your ideas and learn how to compromise. i would like to keep the page on zadar informative for other users who wish to learn about its history, but that can't happen if you keep removing text and replacing it with your own wording and calling it "neutralizing." you refuse to allow anyone else to edit pages, and when they do, you assume bad faith and use every word you can think of, including, and not limited to: nationalist POV, vandalism, sock puppet, vandal, etc. it would be nice to see zadars page include more information, but not for you to edit out what you don't like. please try to act mature about this, and perhaps we can work together to fit in the appropriate facts so the page can become even better. --Jesuislafete 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You just vandalize my referencied edits. If you think that the Croatia's Kigdom is important, do the proper edits. Don't forget source. Try to be present Neutral POV (that what you have not done with your unsupported massive reverts). --Giovanni Giove 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you haven't explained us your bad behaviour. You haven't mentioned where have you put your "sources" (except Italian revisionist sites). You haven't proved our (and others') arguments wrong. You havent't explained your behaviour, described above. What does your not answering on the messages above mean? That you give us that I and others mentioned opposers are wright? So I (and other serious users) can properly edit the mentioned article? And still, above is just the case of the article Jakov Mikalja. We have more cases like this one, in many other articles. You won't get away with such behaviour. Answer when a user nicely asks you to. I'm trying to solve a dispute here. I asked you twice and  on the talkpage of article Jakov MIkalja. You still haven't answer me on my question. Don't just say "it's referenced". Yours only answer is still like that, even after I've told you that you can't contribute like that. Kubura 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove, you've again made self-willing changes, without discussing it with other users. You've continued to POV-ize, and you've also removed the tags that showed current condition of the article "disputed", "POV" and "original research". Despite numerous explanations regarding the language, you've continued ot push your story and original research  and after the corrections explained on the talkpage, you've persistently ignored that and restored your POV version, after I've explicitly warned you for the SECOND time. You've done after that these changes/engaged in editwarring and  and  and  and, , ,. Now you're warned for the THIRD time. Kubura 08:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Some info on the use of Italian
You have a strange habit of turning Croatians into Italians only because they wrote in Italian. It seems you aren't aware of some facts. Italian was a lingua franca for a long time among the Croatians (and other nations) on the Adriatic coast. It's like French in the 18th century Europe: Giacomo Casanova wrote his entire memoirs in French, but nobody even dreams of calling him "Jacques Casanova" (or "Jacques Maison-Nouvelle", LOL). I hope that helped. --Zmaj 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That the usual Croatian believing. If you think you are right, provide proper reference, meanwhile I don't want to spent time to comment this nationalistic claims.--Giovanni Giove 11:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to listen to reason, that's just too bad, Giovanni. It seems you have a bone to pick with Croatians. Well, I'm here to correct all your errors. I'll be your guardian angel, so to speak. See you around! --Zmaj 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with Croatians and I listen all the reason of this World, but I am not responsable if Croatians still refuse the matter of fact, that in Coastal Dalmatia there was an Italian component. That is the problem, not me. -Giovanni Giove 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't play dumb. We know very well that Croatian Littoral was for a very long period under the rule of Republic of Venice, and that Habsburg Monarchy/Austria-Hungary was very inert when was supposed to allow Croatian language to have status of official language in Croatian Littoral (it did after almost a century of requests of majority population, the Croats; in Dalmatia in 1882., in Istria much later)... And don't forget the influential and ruling racist theories in anthropology and racist political attitudes from those times - theories and attitudes that found Slavs as "lower race", "weaker race", "feminine race" (Bismarck), "non-historical people" that should end in garbage (Marx). The unification of Italy and Italy's territorial pretensions and wars with Italy forced Austria to change its policy of suppressing the local Slav majorities (Croats and Slovenians), by preferring and supporting the Italian and pro-Italian population. And neither that was enough. Later, in order to buy Italy's friendship and alliance, Austria did political (neglection of wrights of Croats and Slovenians in Istria, Triest and Görz/Gorica/Gorizia... area) and trade concessions (like Wine Charter) to Italy, that forced thousands of Croats to emigrate abroad. Also, I've mentioned you on many pages (see talkpage of R. of Dubrovnik), that aristocracy used other languages in order to distinguish themselves from lower classes - it was the case all over Europe (in Croatia, aristocracy, depending of area, used Latin, German, Hungarian, Italian). And that very same aristocracy many times declared itself to be part of some other nation (not the nation whose language they used), although it weakly spoke the language of its own people (or not at all). Kubura 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As to Job for you
Sure thing - as soon as I find time for that. Also, I notifyed NovaNova asking him to start editing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatisation. This guy knows a lot about Croats and their history.

--Giorgio Orsini 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

= Dispute is over= All the above kbytes of words are surpassed, as a matter of facts, Wilkinson's lines are quite clear in describing the therm 'Illyric'. I suppose the dispute is over. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who is Wilkinson? And, when did he live? What does it have to do with Mikalja? If you have trouble with Croatian, Illyrian, Serbian, Serbocroatian, South-Slavic diasystem, Slovenian, Carynthian or any other language of interest, so use pages of these languages. Be so kind and stop vandalizing this page, otherwise I will go to report it, and I mean it.--Plantago 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Marko Marulić
It has come to my attention that what you are doing to this article is clear vandalism. Observing your previous articles and your constant edit warring as well as constant disruption on Wikipedia I am asking you to stop. Also you have already broke the 3RR rule on Marko Marulić article and if you continue I will report you. Have a nice day. --No.13 14:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down. My edits are sourced, and you have reverted them with non discussio. About Micaglia, I never did 3 times a brutal reverts so... Try to give a proper reason to your edits. This is a better way!--Giovanni Giove 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is you who should calm down. Your edit is not sourced nor it is in good faith. Additionally you have broke the 3RR rule on Marko Marulić article and that is why I have also reported you. Hopefully you will be sanctioned for you disruption. I hope you learn something from this. --No.13 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for edit warring (and breach of the 3RR) on the above linked article. – Steel 16:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did ask you not to edit war Giovanni... When you get unblocked, please take part in the discussion on the talk page of Giovanni Lucio and Marko Marulić, and work towards a conclusion. As seen here, edit warring and working against consensus, will only cause a longer block, and won't be constructive. -- Dark Falls  talk 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't he deals with "Regional law from the 10th January 1926, nr. 17 called "Restitution in Italian form of the surnames of families from Trento", signed by Vittorio Emanuele, Mussolini and others? The law was publicly declared in official papers in 15th January 1926, n.11. And there was more laws like that. How many Slovenians, Croats, Germans had to italianize their surname? Kubura 08:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Giovanni. I posted this on Croatisation, but then I realized it had nothing to do with the topic, so I'm moving it here:


 * ...and being illiterate, according to your habit. A spell-checker isn't that hard to find, you know. --Zmaj 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw your user page. You're of Istrian ancestry? Me too, from Poreč. Isn't it amusing? So close and yet so far... --Zmaj 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm really fond of Italians. I just don't like it when they try to appropriate Croatian stuff. But I guess it's one of those things.

That's all, I guess. Keep your flag flying! We'll fight for what each of us perceives as the truth and we'll see what comes out of it. Next time I'm in Venice, I'll drop by. Unarmed :) --Zmaj 00:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)