User talk:93.141.96.10

Banned?

You have not been banned, at least this IP has not. If you are still, editing here as an IP and you have a still active ban that is socking and ban evasion.Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was banned with no proof of sockpuppeting on the word of a editor with a COI. If that is how wikipedia works than you have a bigger problem than a single editor fighting against harassment on wikipedia. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no record of a ban on this IP, If you have an active ban in place you should not be editing (so the fact you are IS proof you are socking).Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And read wp:coi, if you think an editor has a COI report it, do not bang on about it on talk pages, its not what they are there for.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are the rules and there is what is done. Wikipedia tough me that. Thank you, I will go ever the link. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now asked for you to be added to the sock investigation as you have admitted to socking.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So a user accuses my original account of socking and gets me banned with no proof whatsoever and now I get banned again for defending myself? This is wikipedia for you. Nice optics. Free to edit bullshit, free to edit as long some clique admin allows you.93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are procedures for appealing blocks, socking is not one of them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is banning a user based on a COI editors word procedure? If I cant be even asked or even given a link to were an accusation was posted to defend myself before I was even banned how can I trust in the procedures?93.141.96.10 (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked as a sock-puppet. You were blocked for abusive behavior and WP:NOTHERE [1]. It was suspected you might be a sock-puppet or meat-puppet but that was not the ban reason. If you read over your edits on JustANameInUse you can see they are very abusive. You were literally attacking other editors and calling four different users "vegan activists" because they reverted you. You have been blocked so all the IPs you are using are evading the block. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read that users page more clearly and stop gaslighting. And you are a vegan activist.93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, everybody in the world is a vegan activist apart from yourself. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sarcasm. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, and the talk page clearly lays out you were banned for being combative, not for socking.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also thought you were not going to edit anymore?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And if you did you would see that I explained myself and that the ban was not removed because I didn't explain the sockpuppet accusation to the standard of the admin in care. Why would I not respond to a person who slanders me? Is that what passes as a gotcha on wikipedia? 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said you are not on the carnivore diet anymore so why do you still want to promote it here? It is a dangerous pseudoscientific diet with absolutely no science-backed medical claims. All of its main proponents on YouTube have admitted to adding carbs back in their life. For example Paul Saladino now eats white rice and fruit daily yet authored the book "Carnivore Code". It's proponents do not actually eat a carnivore diet they all cheat and eat plant matter. It is not sustainable in the long-term. It is not "vegan activists" criticizing the carnivore diet on Wikipedia. It is mainstream nutritional sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how you see editing wikipedia articles? As promotion of the theme written about? Interesting, you keep digging your grave deeper and deeper. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was only the third rejection after you said "This is my first and only account on Wikipedia ever." and was a direct response to that statement. I would have told you "you have not been banned for socking and so you can't appeal on those grounds" they decided instead to point out you were not being wholly honest. The previous two rejections made it clear the block was for being combative.Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I was banned without even being contacted first and even given a chance to explain, and after banning me and me explaining myself to the admins the leftover reason is sockpupet accusation. By an admin who doesn't understand you can edit wikipedia without being logged in. I see you didn't even read it with understanding because that was the second rejection and you seem to be looking for a gotcha to get rid of me. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea I was not party to it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]], You were taken to ANI and even commented there, you were aware of the potential ban.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, shall we first agree that you first read what was written, see the dates when and then you go and try to find a gotcha? That was my original post to declare my intention after I have seen what is going on with the carnivore article censorship. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you go over your account JustANameInUse you joined Wikipedia to promote the carnivore diet. Are you denying this? You were deliberately removing criticisms of it and promoting it as some kind of cure-all and attacking anyone who disagreed with it as a "vegan", that is a violation of multiple policies here. It seems you have now figured out the diet is dangerous and you have done a turn around in your views, that's good I guess. But unfortunately you are still evading block and accusing users of being vegans so your account should be blocked. I will raise this again at ANI. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, go gaslight somewhere else. As can be seen here, you think of editing wikipedia as promotion of the topic at hand. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain this edit [3]. That was your first edit on your account. I find it unlikely that was your first Wikipedia account but in that edit you were campaigning against veganism and wanting the term "fad diet" removed from carnivore diet. This is not normal behavior for a brand new user. You repeatedly call other users "activists" but you were actively trying to promote the carnivore diet on Wikipedia and have criticisms of it removed. Your entire editing history has been to promote the carnivore diet and attack users as being vegans. This is against Wikipedia policy. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to explain, stop gaslighting. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time to stop and take it to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. Now you are being punctual about the rules. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You are violating WP:EVADE. I have blocked this IP address for a month. Note that the block applies to you personally, not just to this IP address. --Yamla (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am gonna suggest you stop with the attitude before the block becomes permanent and you also lose talk page access.

O no, what will I do then? Please don't punish little me. BTW, nice censorship. Your pal even hid the comment you are warning me about. And you didn't even sign your threat. 93.141.96.10 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to sign sorry, we all make mistakes. The art is learning from them and apologizing. Not in going "Well EXCUSSSEEEE ME!". But fine, get a longer ban, no skin of my nose.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: He is on a telecom IP. The IPs are not static. He will just come back on a new IP address he's been doing it for months. This guy is soaking up users time. From now on a WP:DENY attitude is recommended. I have about 50 articles I want to create. No more time should be wasted engaging this disruptive individual who has not created a single article or added a single reference to Wikipedia main-space. His entire agenda was to disrupt the project on talk-pages. The admins are now aware of his IP range and future disruptive editing should hopefully be solved quicker. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.