Dtmohyi

Welcome!

Hi Dtmohyi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Woodroar (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please respond

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Hi Dtmohyi. I'm sorry to have to tell you, but you are at risk of being blocked or banned if you continue editing as you have been doing. Please respond, and I'm happy to explain further. Briefly, you're trying to reintroduce material added by banned editors, you're using references that are inappropriate for such information, and you're edit-warring over the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Your editing is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Dtmohyi. Please respond. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Stop saying "illegal editing"

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you.

You're on real thin ice right now. Your next action could get you blocked. You need to stop, read WP:No legal threats, WP:Assume good faith, WP:CIVIL, and our conflict of interest rules. It's pretty clear the last applies to you in some way, don't try to twist it to accuse others. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, don't bother filing an edit warring report, you're the edit warrior. You filing an edit warring report would be like Lee Harvey Oswald calling the police to say that JFK stole his bullets. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

user Ian Thomson is being overly sensitive. Illegal is clearly in reference to the community guidelines. I did not mention anything about taking legal action.

Eric R. Braverman

Negative WP:BLP content that has been challenged and removed may not be added back unless WP:CONSENSUS has been achieved to do so. If you continue to add such content without achieving consensus, you may beblocked from editing without further warning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, too late. You'll need to address these concerns before you can be unblocked. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Authority? What do you mean by that exactly? The defamatory content you added, which was poorly sourced, challenged, and removed-- who authorized that? Hmm? You are going toneed to clearly identify what you were doing wrong, how you will do better, and stop blaming other people. You will also need to state what you should do when your editing is in conflict with other editors. Oh, and lets not forget about WP:CIVIL. Please explain how that applies to your conduct toward other editors. I'll return if I think of anything more, but that will give you lots of reading to catch up on. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Saying anything about the Eric R. Braverman article or any of the editors you encountered there is only going to get your unblock request denied.

If you are incapable of acknowledging that the Wikipedia community has social contracts, that you need to work with them, and that you have violated them despite attempts to explain them to you (even if you ignored those messages), you are not going to be unblocked.

If you want to be unblocked, you need to look over the messages and see where you have gone wrong. Again, accusing others will accomplish nothing. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

content with citations to third party sources have been deleted from the page without reason or authority, changed to material which is misleading

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Wow, you're still not reading messages. Well, that's the kinder assumption I could make.

These messages are being posted to your page for a reason. They are here to help you navigate the site. You're shooting yourself in the foot by acting as though I'm trying to trick you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand the stated reason for why I am being blocked but there is no evidece for it. I have made useful contributes which have been removed for no valid reason. The only reason appears to be that the blockers are self interested in some way and not here to build an encyclopedia. I have made citations to third party sources in fact the same sources that are currently cited on the eric r braverman wikipedia site. I still have not been given any valid reason for being blocked. I have not caused any damage or distruption.

Decline reason:

Your contributions were removed for a reason, and that reason was mentioned above on this page. Other admins have commented that they suspect you are not reading what is written, so I'm purposefully being unspecific here to force you to go and look. Additionally, personally attacking admins in your unblock request by saying they are "self interested" does not paint you in a good light.

Right now, there's nothing in this unblock request which makes me think that this block is not necessary - if anything, it's cemented my view that unblocking you is the wrong choice. I strongly advise you to take a break for a day or two, review the guide to appealing blocks, read the information which others have posted on this page, and then and only then make another unblock request. stwalkerster (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Unblock discussion and UTRS

• User has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #34979. The request is "open". --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The request is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

My response--

Good Lord. Do please read all the educational material you've been left. As you still have access to your talk page, you should request unblocking there, in full view of the community. Thanks,

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)