User talk:DJTonyPrep

UTRS 31487, number 3
https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/31487 has been created. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 08:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a user-driven outlet for anyone to be able to contribute to. It is a non-profit entity where no one gets paid. So I will respectfully disagree with you. I was not being disruptive in any of my edits. Actually it was quite the opposite. Starting earlier this year, with one editor YoungForever, all of my edits were being reverted with no consultation with me. According to what you, yourself, have stated, there must be a discussion forum and a consensus reached whenever there is a dispute. That didn't happen with me. I was blocked and YoungForver got to continue posting. How do you explain that exactly?

I was being harassed and threatened by other editors, all over differences of opinions over what I contributed. I should point out that I never removed anything anyone else posted. I only added details (i.e. a date or some other specific information). All of my contributions were cited, and they were all factual. So there was no reason for any of my edits to be reverted, and there certainly was no justification for anyone to start blowing up my talk page, trying to force their opinions down my throat. That is harassment sir, plain and simple. Also, no one else got banned, it was just me. So clearly the rules don't apply to everyone.

I will again ask that I be unblocked. I would also suggest you enforce the rules equally. - DJTonyPrep


 * The action that precipitated your block was the persistent blanking of talk page discussion at Talk:The Good Fight. You must address that misconduct in any unblock request you make. —C.Fred (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I already have clearly addressed it. You misused your powers as moderator, and my grievance is very much with you. You had no right to block me, especially when the other people editing Talk:The Good Fight were allowed to continue posting. Nothing I contributed was unfactual, and everything was cited accordingly. You don't get to just block someone because you don't like the way they phrased something, unless it is hate speech or inaccurate, neither of which apply in this instance. You were out of line. -DJTonyPrep


 * Where did you address it? And I was clearly within the guidelines for administrators to block you after this edit, where you removed material from the talk page—especially after you acknowledged the warning that stated you could be blocked for continued removals. —C.Fred (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I addressed it in my appeal. And I didn't acknowledge anything you said, that is a lie. I specifically asked you to stop commenting on my Talk page, and reverting my edits. Seeing as how my complaint is specifically against you and your moderating abilities, I will ask that you allow the third party to arbitrate this. - DJTonyPrep
 * I can certainly bring forward all of your UTRS tickets, in which you failed to address the reasons for your block, and with the responses. You simply rehashed everything you are rehashing here. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What more needs to be said? Were any other editors blocked, specifically the ones harassing and threatening me? No. Were any of my edits not factual, hate speech or anything else inappropriate? No. I was blocked because someone misusing their powers as a moderator had a personal issue with me, plain and simple. -DJTonyPrep


 * They are UTRS ticket 31487, UTRS ticket 30967 and UTRS ticket 30415.

I can certainly copy over my response to your edit warring, which I believe I copied over here. I will. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 19:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In order for there to be "edit warring", two parties have to be involved. I wasn't "warring" with myself, now was I? Yet none of those other editors were blocked, only I was. And as I keep saying over and over, nothing I posted was inaccurate, inappropriate or against Wikipedia's standards. Everything I posted was in line with what I've seen on other pages. So again, I was incorrectly targeted, and I shouldn't have been blocked. Not liking something one posts is not sufficient cause to block them. -DJTonyPrep

HEre you go. I will preface my copied response by emphasizing the following. Edit earring is wrong even when you are convinced you are right.

(I have reformatted because the UTRS format is broken. I have added paragraph breaks.  This is from https://utrs-beta.wmflabs.org/appeal/30415 ) -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 20:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC))


 * Very many people have attempted to help you. You have rejected all that they tried to tell you. Shall I carry over the response where that  issue was addressed? -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 20:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access
Due to continued WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that is a time suck for anyone involved, talk page access has been revoked.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)  Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)