Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd)


 * 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


 * Suspected sockpuppets

&mdash; King Ivan  09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Report submission by

This user has been disrupting numerous articles for quite a long time now. I believe that GiorgioOrsini, Giovanni Giove and recently NovaNova are all the same person. They use the same style of writing (grammar mistakes, spacing, etc.) and they all have the same subject of interest which are Dalmatia-related articles and removing or vandalising every mention of Croatia in them. I have looked around their history pages and I have found striking similarities in their reverts. I found out that these two members have been involved in numerous edit-wars where they have "collaborated" to such a degree that it took my attention right away. Looking closer I found out that they in fact made exactly the same methods and when there wasn't one there was the other doing the same revert and replying in the same manner. Some of the articles included are: List of Croatians, Giovanni Luppis, Francesco Patrizi, Benedetto Cotrugli, Andrea Meldolla and so on. If these are all accounts of the same person (which I am convinced they are) he is also guilty for vote stacking on as can be seen on Talk:Francesco_Patrizi, this page can also be observed for striking similarity in argumentation of these supposedly two people (it is in fact identical). Recently it seems he introduced another sockpuppet at Giulio Clovio named NovaNova, this article is also where GiorgioOrsini is involved in a edit-war for very long time and now he obviously introduced another sock to help himself. In short due to long-term disruption, vandalism, incivility and extremly striking similarity in edit style, argumentation and exactly the same interests I am forced to request an indefinite block or ban of this user and all of his accounts.
 * Evidence

It is certain to assume that Giovanni Giove is the master account, as it is the oldest account out of the three. This person then created his other two accounts in a short amount of time - during November 2006. GiorgioOrsini and NovaNova are his two accounts which are used for rampant edit warring, and personal attacks, and they are also used to create the illusion that their is more than one person who holds these opinions. To get a taste of this report, please see that after a user gave him a legitimate warning, Orsini removed it and was uncivil. Also take a look at this threat/attack.

Looking at each user's contributions, it is highly likely that GiorgioOrisni was created by Giovanni Giove to create the illusion of support for his views on the article "Juraj Dalmatinac". Another point to notice is that GiorgioOrisni's first ever edit was to the talk page of Juraj Dalmatinac, where he immediately started repeating the same words spoken by Giovanni Giove, and immediately engaged in edit warring over that article - quite an unusual thing for a genuine new user to do. Both accounts edit the same articles - often edit warring with other users, most notably on, and other articles of famous Croatian/Italian figures. Both account seem to have the single purpose of removing all references to Croatia or Croats on articles of famous historical figures, and claiming them as exclusively "Italian", while calling all other views "pseudo-historical". Both account use the same style of language in talk pages and edit summaries. The account GiorgioOrsini is also guilty of vandalism, by removing people from article lists and then adding words such as "falsifier" to describe someone. It can clearly be seen that these users are in fact the same person.

Name changes/removals
All three users constantly move pages from Croatian names to Italian ones. All three remove sections of articles regarding name controversies and such - and always use the same or similar "reasoning" (e.g, "removed name nonsense", or "pseudo-historical nonsense".
 * Diffs:


 * Giovanni Giove -, , , , ,.
 * GiorgioOrsini -, , , , , , , , , ,.
 * NovaNova -,.

Neo-Nazism
In "their" mad fanaticism, "they" frequent the articles Neo-Nazism and Neo-Nazism in Croatia, and try to insert inflammatory POV, and more lies and falsifications.
 * Diffs:


 * GiorgioOrsini -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * NovaNova -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

Giulio Clovio
The Giulio Clovio article is a frequent target of this one user's heavy POV edit warring. He frequently removes references and text referring to the man as a Croat. On the talk page, and in edit summaries they are always uncivil, and usually use personal attacks.
 * Diffs:


 * Giovanni Giove -, ,.
 * GiorgioOrsini -, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.
 * NovaNova -, , , , , , ,.

Blocks
All three have been blocked at least once for disruption, personal attacks, edit warring etc. Giove obviously has the most blocks as this is the master account. ,,.

Please look into this
And block the accounts accordingly. Thank You. Here I will answer these claims made by AnonEMouse
 * Comments
 * User bringing the charge is:
 * a Single purpose account,

''I created a legitimate sock puppet account because I was under the impression that if I used this account, my report would be treated differently. Instead, my legitimate sock (to keep my privacy) was blocked as a sock of some other user (Oh the irony;)).''
 * an admitted sock puppet User:Sock Buster

Legitimate sock, to keep issues in one place, and to keep privacy.
 * forum shopping: Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd) ; Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove WP:AN/I; Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove (2nd)

''Well, of course it seems that way. I created this account for the purposes of defeating disruptive sockpuppets.''
 * failed to prove the case before, and in fact, found reasonably strong evidence the two accounts were different: Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove

''No, in fact there was no strong evidence found against it; rather, there was (and IS) strong evidence in support of it. The editor who closed the case was inexperienced, was not an administrator, and did not look hard at the evidence - talking to each other is no evidence of them being two people; it is the editor who owns the sock trying to create the illusion of more than one person. There also was a bias in that previous case, as the writer of teh report had recently been "convicted" of a sock charge. Another thing is, on the page WP:SOCK it says that you can tell a sock if they jump straight into heated debates/edit wars - which is exactly what the sock account have done.''
 * All that said, the charge deserves looking into, but, sheesh. I'd appreciate if someone else did it this time, so he doesn't think it's just me persecuting him. I'll do it if no one else does. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

''Damn straight the case needs looking into. I am requesting that the person who investigates this case not be AnonEMouse or Khoikhoi, they must be an administrator, must not be from (or have heritage/ancestry from) the Balkans or Italy, to prevent any biases.''

P.S - Based on the evidence on this page alone, If they are found not to be socks (but they all certainly are) they most definitely are meatpuppets, and WP:SOCK clearly states that it makes no distinction between meats and socks. &mdash; King Ivan  09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * Thanks for using your normal username when you recreated this case, but you seem to be unaware of a few things.
 * User:AnonEMouse, who closed Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove, is an administrator.
 * Forum shopping is frowned upon.
 * Your request that the investigator not have Balkan or Italian ancestry assumes that editors and administrators cannot see beyond their own ethnic, racial, or national origins, an attitude that's deeply corrosive to this project.
 * As for the evidence you've provided, I find it inconclusive. AnonEMouse turned up evidence that suggests Giovanni Giove and GiorgioOrsini are separate people in the previous case, and nothing you've told us here overturns that. NovaNova has similar interests to Giovanni Giove and GiorgioOrsini, but there's enough difference in their edit summaries, etc. that I find this inconclusive. I'm going to close this case with no action. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)