User talk:Neptun88

Welcome!

Hello, Neptun88, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPA?

Merzbow apparently considers you a single purpose account. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abusing multiple accounts to evade a ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee; see this report. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Well, really nice that nobody cared to make me aware of the severe allegations that were held against me and this though they are easy to refute. This is the "evidence" presented by The Evil Spartan:

OK, I am reluctant to bring this before enforcement, because I know we will see the same crimineyload of wikilawyering that we saw in the recently closed Giovanni case. However, I believe the connection here is fairly obvious that Neptun88 (talk · contribs) is Giovanni33 (talk · contribs). The checkuser case came up false, but this is not surprising, given Giovanni has been known to edit from IPs stemming from distinct locations around the globe (see below). The evidence:

This is someone's sock. The first edit used a common Wikipedia edit summary, and the second edit used another Wikipedia acronym. The editor's fourth edit was to jump into an edit war: [1]. Giovanni socks are known for doing all this.
The user shows the same propensity for edit warring as Giovanni33.
The editor is engaging in an edit war on one of Giovanni's favorite subjects, and is engaging in an edit war on a page which Giovanni is sockingpuppetting on (checkuser proven)
The editor has a similar style username to a known Giovanni sock who was editing this page (Aquarius28).
The editor, like Giovanni, is supporting the edits of other SPA accounts. Cf. [2] [3] [4] [5] with [6]. Like Giovanni, the different IPs mysteriously come from different parts of the world: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#IPs_that_have_edited_Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States. As one person pointed out on the ArbCom case, [7] "All in all, there is a very disturbing pattern of new users with no prior history at Wikipedia arriving and coming to all the pages he edits, agreeing with him on the talk page, reverting to his version, claiming consensus where none exists, and following him to other articles and voting for whatever he votes for."
The editor, like Giovanni, exhibits the same propensity for sniping at other edits in a semi-uncivil manner: [8].
The editor uses the same edit summaries that Giovanni uses; cf. [9] [10] [http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Liberal_conservatism&diff=prev&oldid=225624420 with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_by_The_Evil_Spartan. Cf. with the use of "rv" to start an edit summary, and the oft reference to the talk page.
The editor, like Giovanni, primarily uses his edit warring to support leftwing philosophy: [11].

I am pleased to see that Giovanni is finally branching out from only editing as a SPA. I think it's fairly obvious he learned from his Arbcom case that he was a touch too obvious last time. However, it's equally obvious that Giovanni is Giovanni, and he simply cannot keep himself from edit warring on his favorite pages, from using socks to back himself up, and from being mildly snipy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my response:

1. I have been active as an IP for quite a long time before I registered, thus my knowledge about common acronyms. Many IPs use them.

2. I tried to solve the dispute on the talk page. However, I was ignored because all the others accused my of being a sockpuppet. So I had no chance but to revert.

3. If the "favourite subject" is meant to refer to U.S. intervention in Chile, this is quite a ridiculous assertion. Many people will of course have similar views on this subject. It's a common controversy.

4. In Google I get 672 hits for "Neptun88" (409 for "Neptun77" and 452 for "Neptun99").

5. All these difflinks refer to only one article. And how are you supposed to have IPs registered to different parts of the world? I'd say this is technically impossible.

6. That was a response to this really "semi-uncivil edit" by Jtrainor.

7. These might be some of the most common edit summaries in Wikipedia.

8. "Left-wing philosophy"???!! Did you notice that I just undid an IP deletion? In many other articles I have inserted information critical of communist excesses.[12][13][14] I am interested in Cold War subjects and in "the not so nice"-things done by both sides of the conflict. However, The Evil Spartan really took great care to cherry-pick exactly the few difflinks that back his agenda.

I am also stunned by Rlevse's comment on me causing "disruption". He doesn't seem to have read anything apart from the difflinks provided by The Evil Spartan. Otherwise, he might have noticed that the other side did nothing but to revert and was at least as "disruptive".--Neptun88 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may appeal the block by the usual means, or contact the Arbitration Committee directly if you like. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Neptun88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

as stated above

Decline reason:

As stated above. Please contact ArbCom. — Tiptoety ^talk 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.