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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)