Vandalismdestroyer33
August 2008
edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas , you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.Deconstructhis (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
3RR
editYou know what, you are ridiculous!! it is not a 3RR when I revert your vandalism and unsourced edits. By the way, it is against policy for you to use multiple screen names to rvt my edits. So don't act like you are innocent in the 3RR, with you rvting my edits with multiple IPs. Ctjf83Talk 07:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Vandalismdestroyer33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have checked the part considered "disruptive" and it follows as this :: Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view.:: From what I saw, My Student added a reference to a video which features interviews with various researchers in the field, it applied many references and places where the information was found, from my reading on it appears to be a great reference. Nothing I seen showed any Wikipedia grounds for "Disruptive". My student did add reasons for his edits, I also noticed "No" reasons for his reverts. Further Reading of "distruption" definition is as follows ::This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree. A disruptive editor is an editor who: Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators. In addition, such editors may: Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.:: Once again I may add that my student proved that what he added was far from "original". As even in the talk page other people are stating they have heard about it TV before. So nothing met "Original". For the Edit warring, Wikipedia lists edit warring as follows ::Edit warring is not necessarily characterized by any single action; instead, it is characterized by any mindset that tolerates confrontational tactics to affect content disputes. Edit warring is the confrontational use of edits to win a content dispute. Identifying edit warring is often a judgment call administrators must make when cooling disputes. There are several measures that administrators currently use to determine when a user is engaged in edit warring. The most common measure of edit warring is the three-revert rule, often abbreviated 3RR. The three-revert rule is a useful tool for measuring edit warring, as it posits that surpassing the absolute limit of three reverts on any one page in under 24 hours constitutes edit warring. While the three-revert rule is not to be interpreted blindly, reaching this threshold is generally a strong sign that there is serious misconduct afoot. The 3RR metric is not intended as an exemption for all conduct that stays under the threshold. For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort in response to disagreeable edits. Edit warring is a distinct behavior characterized by a confrontational attitude. It is different in spirit than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is never edit-warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism. Edit warring is the underlying behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time.:: I saw my student's revert state the reason for his reverts was "removing vandalism" which Wikipedia states Reverting vandalism and banned users is never edit-warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious POV edits and other good-faith changes, do not constitute vandalism, at the same time I believe my student only reverted 3 times tops. For Vandalism Wikipedia lists Vandalism as follows ::Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.:: My student did not remove or change content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia nor did my student add obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. Nor was what my student added a personal opinion as he clearly proved was not personal and was even stated in the talk page by other users. Wikipedia clearly states controversial changes will not be considered Vandalism, which my student's edit may by some people be seen as controversial but it is not a original or personal subject matter. After my student told me to come and look at the wikipedia page I came to the computer and told my student to not revert anymore, I created this account for my personal use and I added what my student added and put that in the talk page for further discussion. I then reported the 3 revert rule action by another Wikipedia member for a admin to look over, which I am entitled to do, then today I notice the person I reported has left a nasty comment which you can see above towards me. I believe that comment counts as a personal attack. Wikipedia defines personal attacks as follows :: Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.:: The reported user after being reported put this statement on my talk page "You know what, you are ridiculous!!" which a Insult of a editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Wikipedia clearly states ::The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.:: As far as sock Puppet, Only one IP was used, mine will more than likely be the same as the one my student made when he made 3 reverts (only 3 reverts) and then there is mine with my current account name, I moved my student's reverted material to the talk page for other users to discuss. I then reported the 3 revert rule person for a admin to look over since it appears they made 6 reverts in a 24 hr period with only having a reason for 1 revert. It should also be noted that usually when a person turns their modem off the IP has been known to change, 1 IP can actually be used by up to 1000 or more people if they use the same internet service provider. This computer has not been turned off for the past 2 days so it has had the same IP for the past 2 days and my IP will probally change after I turn it off. Today I enter Wikipedia to check on what other users have had to say about the discussion that was added to the talk page (Since me being a teacher I had added some stuff to add to the subject myself), I find that I have had my account banned forever?? Yet I did nothing to count as a ban, I simply moved a subject to a talk page to be discussed further by other users and I reported a user for 3RR. None of which count as a reason for a ban.
Decline reason:
Please shorten this. We are volunteers, and don't have time to read something this long. This guide may be of some help. — Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (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.
Vandalismdestroyer33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was unfairly blocked, I am making this reason shorter as asked but the full reasoning is stated above. I do not have a SPA, I have not disrupted anyone, I simply moved a topic my student add and moved that to the talk page for other people to discuss. The out of europe idea is not a original one, I am not a sock puppet, The student was using my computer but this computer changes the ip every time it is turned off. Wikipedia states Disruption as follows " Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a mouthpiece for viewpoints that constitute original research. While notable minority opinions are welcome when verifiable through reliable sources, and constructive editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view." So nothing me or my student did constitute that since the view has been on tv numerous times, All I have done was move my student's edit to the talk page to be discussed there and I reported a person that reverted 6 times without giving a reason. Me and my sutdent used the same computer so we only used 1 IP, once I turn this computer off it will have a new IP but this computer was not turned off in the last 2 days. So My blocking is unfair.
Decline reason:
This sounds like a WP:Meatpuppet and this specific type of situation is covered here. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2008 (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|I am not a meat puppet I did exactly as Wikipedia says to do, under Wikipedia's Meatpuppet section it shows how Idid just as they say, In Wikipedia's section on Meatpuppets it reads ::Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, then the appropriate action is to avoid personal attacks, seek comments and involvement from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another:: I did just that, Idid not Revert anything, instead Seeked comments and involvement from other wikipedians by moving the section to the Talk page for other wikipedians to get involved in and seek comments from other wikipedians. So I only followed what wikipedia said to do, there is no reason to ban me for only doing as Wikipedia stated to do}}
- Well, forget about the lawyering -- we rarely respond to that -- and just tell us what edits you plan to make if you are unblocked. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I would probally make edits to a few Science discussions since I am a science teacher. However me personally I would prefer to use discussion sections since I like to get feed back from other people. I have not had a chance to do anything as of yet though since I moved a topic to a discussion page and then reported a 3rr to wikipedia are the only 2 things I have been given a chance to do thus far. Apprently the real reason I feel I even got banned was because I reported a 3rr for a admin to look at, right after that I got a insult made to me on this talk page which you can see above by the person I reported. It was right after that which I got banned, I did not even receive any warning at all for any violations, which I have went all thru Wikipedia help pages and not found a thing where I broke any rules. Only thing I did was apprently try to stop a edit war and was banned. I don't know man. I will also add that the edit I made was made 24 hrs before my ban, so there was no sign of me edit warring. So I make a edit then 24 hrs later a person decided to ban me. Kind of weird if you ask me...unless it was solely because I reported a 3rr for a admin to look at. I repeat.. I was never even given a single warning...instead just a flat out permant ban.
- (a) Please sign your comments with ~~~~. (b) You were blocked because it appeared -- and quite reasonably -- that you were using this named account to get around 3RR issues with the IP edits. Your accusations of vandalism and racism were also quite unwelcome (as well as both incorrect and inappropriate.) (c) If you really think that that video you (or, as you say, your student) was linking to was an appropriate source for Wikipedia, you need to look a lot more closely at our guidelines regarding reliable sources, neutral point of view, and fringe science. However: I'm going to assume good faith and unblock you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
August 2008 1.1
edit Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you.Deconstructhis (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Indigenous peoples of the Americas for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deconstructhis (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)