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