User talk:DdipHere

September 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can return to your original account if you wish to continue your old debates. Any further socking and I'll block the master account as well. -- ferret (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, despite what Joebro wrongly thinks, I am not the same person, believe it or not. Can't you verify through IP or whatever you have to do? DdipHere (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, @Ferret:, but if there are any similarities or coincidences with another account that I was accused of being, I guess it would not-impossibly be the quite simple fact that I happen to also be a likeminded gamer intimately familiar with the material who perceived the same thing wrong with the same subject of interest, looked through the openly available page history to find out what happened and discover who was responsible, connected the dots, and tried to have it addressed, kind of like how editors are supposed to be free to contribute to a wiki? I don't know how else I'm supposed to provide proof except to ask again that you check the IP logs or do whatever it is you do to confirm. I have no idea, but I cannot emphatically stress enough that your reason for blocking me was incorrect. DdipHere (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The block template informs you how to file an appeal. I will not unblock, the behavioral evidence is more than sufficient, and even if it's wrong, your editing is disruptive on it's own. For appeal reviewers: Note the article had to be protected while this editor was logged out using IPs. -- ferret (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On your other point @Ferret:: I disagree. It didn't have to be. If he hadn't stated in his last edit that he would "not be reverting further" then I wouldn't have misread that as him letting it go, otherwise I would have taken it to the talk page sooner. A regrettable miscalculation on my part. Also, I wasn't the one who called the other "dummy" and flipped-out swearing. Wikipedia is a huge website that draws in tons of people daily. It has to have some sort of mechanism in place to sort out accusations, or else it seems anyone can do that anywhere whenever they get challenged on their edit history. P.S. I can read - there never was any "consensus," in fact it has been removed and then added by another user you blocked. This just feels like a way to stifle consensus. That is all. DdipHere (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]