User talk:Romaioi/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Summary of Events Concerning False Sock Puppetry Accusations against User: Romaioi[edit]

On 25 June 2008, an accusation was made that User: Romaioi, a relatively new user, was a sock puppet. Defense was presented by User: Romaioi in accordance with the rules outlined to him. On 2 July 2008, it was categorically shown (at link1 & link2) that User: Romaioi was not a sock puppet. Further, this is clear evidence that all assumptions made about User: Romaioi have been wrong. It is hoped that whoever wishes to raise such accusations against anyone in future will be more thorough in their examination of the evidence before stepping over that line.

Romaioi (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This subject should not be altered in any way. It’s purpose is to summarize events pertaining to the false accusations towards and treatment of User: Romaioi. Because the intention is brevity, additional comments will be deleted – background information regarding the sockpuppetry case can be sought in the archives and the related evidence pages. Acts of Wikipedia:Vandalism will be reported in accordance with guidelines at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The original contents of this summary were discussed here, here, and here

Second Sock Puppetry Accusation Against User:Romaioi by Same Accuser[edit]

The following will remain here as documentation to serve as defense material against further unreasonable and slanderous sockpuppetry accusations against User:Romaioi.

On 9 August, after the initial sockpuppetry investigation the accuser, in response to an AN/I raised regarding his belligerent and abusive behaviour (and inadequate non-NPOV investigation), once again accused User:Romaioi of sockpuppetry [1] [2] - a sock of two different users this time! The second accusation(s) is based upon conversations here & here, whereby the socks supposedly re-appeared (in the form of IP's, & to criticize the accuser of bullying tactics at the same time that User:Romaioi highlighted the false accusations and abusive campaign against himself.

Using, it can be seen that IP originates from New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. IP originates from Sydney, New South Wales (NSW), Australia and is a rural DragonNet ISP. IP (also attributed to User:Brunodamdif) is in Brazil.

The previous sock puppetry investigation showed User:Romaioi was on a different ISP 4000km away from the nearest sock (specifically this diff) (Perth, Western Australia, in fact) and this link indicates the nearest "REAL SOCKS” were in the vicinity of Sydney, Australia.

Yet hard facts are not sufficient for the accuser. The accuser still asserts that User:Romaioi is a sock of User:Generalmesse, and also User:Brunodam, as per the accuser’s slanderous insinuations while canvassing others to join his cause, viz:

  • As Romaioi stated in one of his rants that he was in Brisbane for work I and other editors believe that while on this trip he created the socks (as Brisbane is in New South Wales) - this foresight makes me believe that the user behind Romaioi was expecting to run into trouble on wikipedia and also that this was not his first sock creation (the knowledge about checkuser and his demand to make one, point also in the direction that he already knew how checkuser works and that he knew it would turn up negative.) [3]
Note that Brisbane is in QLD, not NSW, and is quite a distance from Sydney. here is a MAP to demonstrate, note the locations of Perth, Brisbane and Sydney, and distances. This is too simple a mistake for an adult showing appropriate due diligence to make.
There is yet to be another editor who outright states that User:Romaioi is believed to create socks while on trips (coincidently, trips to places Romaioi does not frequent). This statement was part of a canvassing exercise whereby the accuser was attempting to coerce another editor, who saw things differently [4], to align himself against User:Romaioi. This other editor was twice criticised for his comments [5][6] [7], as they did not fit the accuser’s perspective. The accuser was presenting unsubstantiated speculation as fact.
  • you were right from the beginning that Romaioi is Bruno is Generlamesse is Capitanocorelli is..…..Brunodam usually edits from Broomfield Colorado, but Brunodam had/has a habit to create socks wherever he went - so new users popped up and would support him and edit exactly the same articles like he did with the same POV, but when a checkuser was run, if Brunodam was related to them the results were that he had registered in Colorado and the socks were registered in Italy or Florida or Georgia and so on.[8] & [9] put together in the manner of the accuser.
  • As for the IP address: it is from South America - the home of Brunodam [10] i.e. the accuser is inconsistent on the matter of the “believed” home location of User:Brunodam.
  • More lies: User:Romaioi seems to be a sock of banned User:Brunodam.....massively pushing Italian nationalistic-revisionist POV in articles about the Balkans……added fascist propaganda to various articles, insulted other editors and so on……Romaioi fits nicely in this behavior - especially as Romaioi was the name to Roman people that lived in the Balkans after the partition of the Roman empire (with just 8,280 google results for Romaioi one must be quite an expert to a) know the name and b) know it is Greek). More damming proof that Romaioi and Brunodam are related.[11] Romaioi is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people?? The more I think about it the surer I am: Romaioi = another sock of Bruno[12].
Here we have a major doosies of insinuations that User:Romaioi, a person who has never mentioned any of these things, never contributed such propaganda and never insulted other editors, has, according to the accuser, an Italian racial superiority POV. The last time User:Romaioi checked, he was born and raised Australian. All of the accuser’s claims are false.
User:Romaioi’s sources (explained here & here) are by British, American and Swiss authors and their sources can be traced to British military accounts, such as Gen. Alexander. One of User:Romaioi’s main sources is Chester Wilmot, a WWII (&I) BBC war correspondent who was present on most campaigns. So this is fascist propaganda?
  • As I understood from reading some Bruno discussions he had a habit of registering socks wherever he went... so I believe that he registered the various socks on a business trip to Australia (which would also explain, why Romaiois favourite time to edit is 4pm to 3am Perth time - or 7am to 6pm Broomfield time[13] Yet another canvassing push. The editor the accuser was communicating with was not so sure.
Note that Colorado and Western Australia are 14 hours apart, not the 12 hours that the accuser implies (see this link to a TIME ZONE MAP of the world). This is another mistake which is too simple for an adult exercising due diligence to make. Apart from this being a ridiculous assertion, the accuser is implying that the accused is only active at night in one location and has disguised his IP.

Note that the dates of the above entries are after the original sock puppetry investigation where User:Romaioi was categorically cleared of being a sock [14].

The slanderous insinuations and distortions highlighted here are but a few presented against User:Romaioi. Further examples of slanderous insinuations Further examples are here

To summarize, essentially, according to the accuser and his foresight, User:Romaioi knew he was going to be implicated, so he promptly packed his bags moved himself to 4000km across the Australia[15] (or across the world, as the accuser’s story pertaining to locations keeps changing and he claimed that User:Romaioi (a.k.a everyone else) also lived in South America[16] and Bloomfield, Colorado, USA[17] at the same time) just so he can post on one topic. Of course, the accuser never offered how User:Romaioi could have already been posting from an ISP that was unrelated to all others [18].

The accuser’s assertions that User:Romaioi gallivants across the world to post abusive and pro-fascist material is logistically impossible and rather insane:

Examining the chronology of edits at Talk:Military history of Italy during World War II, i.e. here & here, User:Romaioi made an edit by IP in Sydney (or Rural NSW), then ~6.5 hours later made an edit as himself in Perth. This is a 5 hour flight away. If you include typical travel time of 50 minutes to Sydney Airport (it would be over 2 hours if your start was from Rural NSW) and 30 minutes travel from Perth Airport (typical). Then you have a 30 minute cut-off for checking in. Add those times together and you have 7.3 hours – i.e. the fastest time possible to get from location to location and be able to think about turning on your computer. It is likely to be longer. Then User:Romaioi has supposedly flown to New Orleans to make an edit as IP, a bit under 2 days later (where I apparently made several offending posts). The flight time alone is about 5 + 16 hours to LA + 4 = 24 hours. Then you have likely delays between flights, check-in, and travel to and from airports. It can add up to over 36 hours. Then, if we add IP into the mix, User:Romaioi flew to Brazil to post the very next day. Bare in mind that my base of operations is allegedly in Colorado [19] (or Brazil [20] considering that User:Romaioi is supposedly User:Brunodam and the accuser cannot make up his mind which location he originates), so User:Romaioi would have commenced his travels from one of these two places to make the very first edit in NSW (> 20 hours flying time). Am I the only one who sees the implausibility of this, particularly in the absence of commercial hypersonic travel? Who would even have the energy?

It is surprising that these assertions have been taken seriously by some. The geographical location of Brisbane, and the time zone difference between Western Australia and Colorado are very easy to determine. The correct definition of the word romaioi is simple too. How could the accuser, if he was exercising appropriate due-diligence, conceivably get these wrong? More deliberate misrepresentations perhaps?

Such a logistical impossibility was highlighted by Romaioi in his initial sock puppetry defense [21] - we now know that it was obviously ignored.

The entire time, User:Romaioi repeatedly requested that the accuser (and all others involved with the investigation) actually examine closely and note that the patterns, styles etc were actually different. Romaioi, also presented some of the pattern differences. all here in detail- albeit, not linked using difs explicitly (as Romaioi was new to Wikipedia at the time), but appropriate evidence was referred to nonetheless. Yet the accuser, still, after User:Romaioi was shown not to be a sock [22], the continues to ignore the evidence.

Rather, in response to User:Romaioi presenting a defense of the allegations and his character, the accuser labeled User:Romaioi a FANATIC [23]!

FINALLY, one sound minded colleague of the accuser’s had a closer look and noted that the styles were completely different: Romaioi is NOT Brunodam. Entirely different style in his use of English from my dear old friend Bruno[24]. Alleluia!

It became apparent during the AN/I instigated by User:Romaioi [25] (and was suspected during the WQA [26]) that the evidence that User:Romaioi presented as defense was not being read. User:Romaioi was continually perplexed that his claiming the accuser to be lying was being labeled a personal attack, while the slander and offensive tones against him were being dismissed – almost nobody has read them. During the AN/I, the majority of Noclador’s friends admitted they never read the background material e.g., (two other examples have no dif in the edit history (admin - sic) – one was by Buckshot06, the other by Polarlys link). One of the colleagues intimately involved with the sockpuppetry case admitted [27] to not have read the evidence put forward by User:Romaioi, which included notes on the obvious differences patterns, styles, types of user names, etc...., and presented links directly to the slander and abuses against User:Romaioi. Those that did some reading claimed that the accuser did nothing wrong (supposedly, slander,insult and distortion of evidence is ok in some countries) and that User:Romaioi over-reacted. But its is strongly doubted that they read the sequence of events, summarised here. User:Bahamut0013, for all his exemplary effort in reading much of the history, did not read any of the early sequence of belligerent actions carried out by the accuser before User:Romaioi reacted.
  • The accuser also lied (yes, that is what deliberate presentation false information is called) about which contributions made by User:Romaioi, in order to falsely associate the accused with the socks[28]. The pages which User:Romaioi did and did not contribute to are explained here.
  • In short, the accuser did not bother to investigate, he simply made up his mind and has run with the same non-NPOV conclusion since.
  • Only conclusion: the accuser is conducting a campaign against User:Romaioi, with extreme prejudice, based on his own distorted beliefs and substandard investigations. The second sockpuppetry accusation and repeated impossible (logistically incredulous) assertions, contrary to the proof to the converse, indicates that the accuser will continue to maintain an inaccurate position with extreme prejudice. They also show that he has complete disregard for the validity of checkuser. However, his closs associates appear to believe that Checkuser is sufficient for exhorantive purposes, at least where they are concerned [29] [30].
This view of an agenda is strengthened by:
a) The accuser’s repeated calls for banning User:Romaioi, before, during and after the sock puppetry investigation,
i) both in sly background talks [31] [32] [33] (this one was not certain) [34] [35] [36] [37] [38], and in an ANI against User:Romaioi, [39], (which User:Romaioi was not informed of).
b) Inability or refusal of the accuser to consider evidence, actual contributions or quote anything straight,
i) but rather manipulate and deliberately misrepresent information. Detailed above, below and [ here – link to ANI addendum] plus , classic e.g.
c) Disregarding of exonerating evidence and continual claim that User:Romaioi is a sock,
d) even though it would be clear to anyone who read Romaioi’s mainspace historical contributions [40] that almost every sentence is supported by a citation and is of NPOV content, the accuser continually states the opposite ,e.g., (yet provides no supporting evidence of merit).
i) User:Romaioi even went so far (in one conversation with another user that was used to smear Romaioi) as to highlight his own retro-spective preference for a Yugoslav/Greek/Italian economic and defensive alliance rather than see Italy enter WWII. – how racist & Italo-glorifying of User:Romaioi!!!!
- This is but one example of what the accuser deliberately overlooks when attempting to paint a slanderous picture of User:Romaioi.
e) Rather, the accuser repeatedly presents the inaccurate theme that User:Romaioi fit the same POV, pro-fascist pattern of all other alleged socks, and likes to discuss the Balkans. It is also generally claimed that User:Romaioi is a racist [41] [42] and a bully [43], and behaves in sinister fashion to deliberately deceive and disrupt Wikipedia, among a myriad of other things. All this without bothering to read the actual mainspace contributions of User:Romaioi, not even the actual contributions that motivated him to label his initial accusations. All of the accuser’s are fallacy.

To base such accusations on unresearched opinion is unethical. And it is a departure from the Greek philosophical tradition that constitutes a major component of the Wikipedia ethos.

Note that whilst the accuser believes that User:Romaioi is a WWII generation Italian Fascist, User:Romaioi is in fact a 31 year old male who was born and raised in Australia – Perth, Western Australia, in fact – the only location User:Romaioi has ever edited from.

What caused the Non-NPOV Accusations against Romaioi?[edit]

The fervent belief of the accuser that User:Romaioi is a sock of multiple users is based on his contribution to an article on Italian WWII military history. The summary of the early sequence of events is below. It will be seen that the accuser behaved belligerently before User:Romaioi was offered any reply communication:

User:Romaioi was a new user (officially joined 27th May 2008) [44], who saw this passage under Italian Army (presumably added by the accused sock, Generalmesse) and believed that he could help constructively improve it, make it NPOV and add relevant citations, so he began working on it here. As User:Romaioi thought the content was innapropriate in the section it was originally found, he moved it to Military history of Italy during World War II, where he believed it more apt, and created a new section (dif of newly created section). User:Romaioi stated what he was doing in the edit summary of the edit. He then continued working on it.

A justification for the content was later placed here, with the request that people work together on the issue rather than bicker.

The next time User:Romaioi logged on to add another citation he found:

  1. The section initiated on June 1st 2008 was deleted [45] & I was accused (wrongfully) [46]) of being a sock puppet of Giovannigiove.
a) Was directed to a page that made no reference to User:Romaioi (this one)
  1. The entire content of User:Romaioi’s talk page (the welcome to Wikpedia he received, providing pointers on navigation, editing and signatures etc, and previous conversations) had originally been completely wiped by the accuser with solely the sock puppetry accusation remaining [47]. i.e. judge, jury and execution before any reasoned investigation. Hello!
  2. User:Romaioi undeleted the relevant historical section [48], pointing out in the edit summary that the content was most relevant there, if anywhere (it was still a work in progress). He stated to the accuser that he was doing so.
  3. The accuser re-deleted the material [49], and claimed User:Romaioi was generelmesse [50].
a)This unconstructive deletion was the final straw in what ticked me off, and User:Romaioi stated Use some of that good faith that you mentioned. Open a discussion page. Help me improve it instead of “vandalizing” the contribution. I have more to add when I get the rest of my sources out of storage. I cannot vouch for the radio Berlin links. I did not inlcude them. However, if you have an issue with them, as I said, put it on a discussion page. [51]. This is where others feel that User:Romaioi over-reacted.
b) It took Karriges’ assertion that the subsection had merit to stop further deletion [52].

The remainder of the sequence of events is detailed here.

Using the Accuser’s model of reasoning…….[edit]

  • Consider:
  1. The Accuser has presented a uncited POV, glorifying the fighting efficiency of Italian military units, here. The style is much like that of Generelmesse’s, who the accuser commonly refers to.
  2. The accuser has come up with a supposition that a sockpuppetry gang has originated from Colorado or South America, and that the socks travel all over the world for purpose of posting pro-fascist propoganda e.g.. Typically, only those who do such absurd things tend to accuse others of doing so.
  3. The colourful language used by the accuser to abuse others [53] is a typically Australian trait. i.e. his description of others as Quote: Fucking cunts...
Hence if you apply the accuser’s own model of reasoning (and words) then this is damming proof that User:Noclador is a sock of User:Generalmesse.
  • Note that the accuser’s reasoning is sometimes more simplistically (and dare it be said naïve) with the hypothesis being: if you are a new user and contribute to any page involving Italian military, then you are a sock. This is the reasoning that was initially applied in accusing User:Romaioi of being a sock - This conclusion has been deduced by User:Romaioi on the basis that no investigation was being conducted by the accuser, and because disparate material (that was being presented as damming proof) was selectively,,, excerpted from sections of User:Romaioi’s writing that clearly demonstrated contrary patterns to those of the socks (and the assertions of the accuser).

Further Examples of slanderous insinuations and direct personal attacks by the accuser[edit]

  • Below is a classic example of misrepresentative evidence to inaccurately portray of the circumstances [55]:

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)

This evidence did not reflect what User:Romaioi was saying at all. Portions of statements have been pulled/patched together from disparite locations to say something completely different to anything User:Romaioi was actually saying (or the context User:Romaioi was presenting). This is misprepresentative, manufactured passage. It has several of incorrect assertions were also thrown into the mix. The 1:1 comment is also interesting because no equivalent comment of Generalmesse's was ever presented to demonstrate this claim. The snipe about User:Romaioi wanting to be a published author was also interesting because User:Romaioi never ever made such a statement. (But User:Romaioi later clarified that he actually was one, which led to another snide remark.) This was found to be rather sensationalist, the kind of misinformation that you find in tabloids.
The disparate locations from which this passage was manufactured are clearly anti-fascist in their nature and actually highlight User:Romaioi’s own retrospective preference for a Yugoslav/Greek/Italian economic and defensive alliance rather than see Italy enter WWII. – how racist & Italo-glorifying of User:Romaioi!!!! [56]
  • The accuser provided evidence on the same page [57], to claim that User:Romaioi was being deceptive in his use of IP’s. Yet on the very same page in question [58] (and his own talk page [59]) User:Romaioi declared what he was doing – yet this was selectively ignored in the evidence presented to 'nail' User:Romaioi. (This was addressed on the sock puppetry investigation page here – it was proof that User:Romaioi did not know how to sign his own username of all things).
  • what is a typical comment of Romaioi?... it is full of wrong accusations and it's twisting a lot of facts... so what are typical Bruno comments: a classic Bruno comment... And what is typical about Romaiois comments... right - he revisits them and changes them multiple times; just like - guess who! :-) --noclador (talk) [60]. More sock assertions. Claiming a type of POV, abusive, fascist assertion that is not reflected in anything User:Romaioi has written; mainspace contributions or user talk.
  • A recap of some other personal attacks that [[User:Romaioi]] has experienced of here:
Implying that User:Romaioi is a fanatic at (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove) – because User:Romaioi defended myself. What User:Romaioi did was present a thorough breakdown, as per his right within the scope of the rules.
Original sarcastic assertion at [61] that User:Romaioi is User: Brunodam and have moved from Italy to Australia.
Accusation of being a bully at [[62]] – much more of a personal attack than User:Romaioi claiming him to have lied.
Snide comments about me wanting to be a publish author (see quote above, from this link - a comment User:Romaioi never made).
Snide comments about User:Romaioi actually being a publish author – made later at [63].
Deletion of edits and accusations of vandalism and “not having good faith” against User:Romaioi ([64], [65]) – only to be undone by other users, who demonstrated the appropriate reason.

Romaioi’s comments or "rant"[edit]

This is the kind of statement that I find beyond inaccurate, outrageous: Some of those edits have a link to Romaioi [66]. The statement is grossly inaccurate. The merit of such a statement becomes apparent when the same user states the complaint of abuse as unfounded, then in the same passage admits that he did not read the evidence, presented in plain English, by User:Romaioi, claiming TLDR [67].

The fact is THERE WERE NEVER ANY LINKS BETWEEN User:Romaioi AND THE ACCUSED SOCKS. THERE WAS ONLY THE PREJUDICE AND BIAS OF A FEW OTHER USER’s WHO CHOSE TO LOOK NO FURTHER THAN UNDER THEIR NOSES. The claims of Fascism, racism etc are all lies and represent the worst kind of slander. Those who think it is ok for a select few to make such false claims, lie about a person’s actions in an attempt to have them banned need to re-examine their positions, in my opinion. There is talk of NPOV and POV, yet here there are those who stubbornly assert their biased POV’s in order to incriminate an innocent contributor. They were the ones who chose not to live by the Wikipedia ethos and refuse to assume good faith. They assumed guilt and most have yet to read, examine or consider the defensive evidence. They took the word of a contributor who did not investigate but instead belligerently deleted “work in progress” contributions, vandalized, made wrongful accusations and put forward slander, claming it to be “damming proof”. (Ironically, the accuser can just as easily be suspected of being a sock himself, seeing that he posts material of a similar nature to the socks he so fervently pursues.)

To then accuse a person who has been forced into a corner (and defends themselves) for wrongdoing, even after he/she was cleared, is one of the lowest acts.

THANK YOU FOR THIS WELCOME TO WIKEPEDIA. . It appears that honesty is worthless here. It is simply distorted into lies that are used against you. And the lies & preconceived ideas have more value than reason and hard facts.

I will quote two passages from Jimbo Wales’ user page:

  • Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals (and there are real vandals, who are already starting to affect us), should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny". Point 2 of the Statement of Principles
Well done to the accuser for failing these principles dismally!

After having looked through some of accusers other contributions to the “sock” saga I have observed that he is abrupt/rude and believes his own opinions to be facts – apparently this is good enough for some. The accuser simply has issues that make him unfit for conducting investigations or policing content.

Romaioi (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Your case[edit]

Hi. Thanks for posting the pointer to your post at WP:AN.

Look, if you want my opinion: I think the guy should have apologized to you way back, but I think it's well past the point that that's going to happen, and by obsessing about it in this manner you make it less and less likely that it ever will. It surely will seem unjust to you, but the plain fact of the matter is that the more you post about it, tilting at windmills, as it were, trying to get something to be done about it, the more that you are perceived as being the problem, and the other guy's role becomes minimized. That's perhaps not fair, but it's a fact of human nature.

My advice to you is to try your best to swallow your pride, put this behind you, and move on. Wikipedia exists to create an encyclopedia, and I assume you're here because you think you have something to contribute to it. Why not put the hours you've dedicated to attempting to prosecute your case into some productive edits to improve articles on subjects you care about? In the end, I think you'll feel better if you do.


Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed, Thanks for those comments. I do tend to agree. Never had any allusions otherwise, after realizing that my comments did not seam to matter. What I wrote here, and at the AN/I was my attempt a structured summary. The purpose, beyond what I highlighted to you, was to give me something as reference which covered everything the next time I am accused, which I think it inevitable. All my other writings individually did not cover the full breadth of what went down.
I'm not as angry about it as most people seam to think. Just stressing a point. And I figured, if they didn't care too much about what I had to say or what I thought when I was rightly protesting my innocence and the slander I was subjected to, then I do care to much about what they think when I point out what actually went down.
Hopefully it won't come to another accusation etc again. I only ever wished to contribute where I had information that could help elucidate things more. I've long glanced Wikipedia, have found inconsistencies here and there (as you would expect) and thought that every now and then I could help clear things up. No more. Never expected what happened so early on.
Best Wishes,
Romaioi (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello again Romaioi. I hope, by those comments, that you are not going to leave... There are many people here who support you (I am one of them)! If you need any help, we will be there for you; just stay for a bit longer and find out how much fun it is to be a Wikipedian when there are no pending sockpuppet cases against you... I hope that you decide to stay; however, if you decide otherwise, I understand, and I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 21:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Just forget about the entire sockpuppet won't happen again. There is no conspiracy against you, it was just a case of (figuratively) being in the wrong place at the wrong time... I you need any help with any page, or if you have any questions on anything, feel free to come to my talk page and drop me a line. Cheers, -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Hiya The Ed. Thanks for the supportive words there. I wasn't intending on leaving. I was meaning that was intending to help clean things up wherever I saw the need and no more than that. I do appreciate the kind words. My summary is pretty clear as to what happened. I understand Justin's point, but I do not think mine is understood. When you are trying to police something, you don't go around abusing, deleting, misrepresenting evidence, canvasing etc. Plus my guilt was still assumed after checkuser cleared me, which shows the lack of good faith. Then after wards, the criticism was all one way towards me, then the ANI against me and the WQA, all from one objective attempt to clean something up, so I felt a point was needed to be made. Cheers. Romaioi (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your summary[edit]

If you want, I can move the summary to a subpage for you...otherwise, if you want to do it, just copy & paste it to a user subpage, such as User:Romaioi/Sockpuppet Case or something similar. -talk- the_ed17 -contribs- 13:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I will do it when the time comes. I haven't got time to look into it, or the MFD page, tonight. Its 1 am when I am and my little one will be due for a feed soon. I'll have look tomorrow. Cheers. Romaioi (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MFD LINK[edit]

An MFD was initiated in response to the documentary sock puppetry and slander summary [68]. Whilst this is seen as offensive to some, the attacking material that this addresses, some of which is in publicly viewable user space, is not seen as offensive. This is the worst kind of hippocracy.

The page indicates, yet again, that the situation remains unresearched and relvant background material remains unread.... Meaning that the unjust bias remained. Why? Because the same baseless allegations are bandied about, with no respect for the facts. It would be nice if people could get their facts staight when they chose to get involved, whether for the right reasons or not.

The glaring truth is that there are a different set of rules for different users and that the axioms of Jimbo Wales, and certain Wikipedia guidelines, are not observed or respected. They are only referred to and used as tools to threaten when situation suits a certain whim.