Theresa Knott wrote:
I've unblocked you but take heed. The _only_
reason i unblocked you is
because anthony wasn't blocked. You violated the 3RR and so did
desearve the block - note that the three reverts are in a 24 hour
period - so if you revert the night before and again the next morining
you may break the rule without really realising it.
I know you were restoring the consensus version, I know that
sockpuppets were used - but there is no need for you to revert war.
Do your three reverts and then step back from the article - I assure
you that someone else will take up the reigns because as the votes on
the talk page there is an overwhelming majority in favour of having
the picture.
I think it should be noted that another user was blocked earlier for
breaking the 3RR while Irate wasn't, despite many reverts on /both/
sides. There may have been other reasons to block the other user but it
was the 3RR that was quoted. Irate should really have been warned and
(if necessary) blocked at this time.
I didn't activate the block when I noticed because Irate hadn't been
warned and because he evidently felt that the revert was of simple
vandalism. (I agree that Irate was following consensus, but that
doesn't make the other person's edits simple vandalism - this was
clearly a content dispute). If Irate had broken the rule after I warned
him and pointed him towards the relevant vandalism policies then I would
have blocked him (and the same for Anthony of course).
All this isn't to pick a fight, it's just to say that we must be fair
about this - as Teresa says, it's important to be even handed in using
this rule.
--sannse
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.4 - Release Date: 30/11/04