| Revision as of 07:06, 19 March 2007 editMiranda (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,620 edits update statement← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:09, 19 March 2007 edit undoCoredesat (talk | contribs)22,795 edits decline unblock requestNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| block by rogue admin, known sock puppet, was reverting vandilise he doing, he hop onto admin account. please {{unblock}} | |||
| Exceptions | Exceptions | ||
| Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly. | Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly. | ||
| Line 18: | Line 13: | ||
| ] 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | ] 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :You violated the ]. A fan site is not considered to be controversial, if the content of the site is not libellous. However, placing ]lous statements on wikipedia is. Previous to the block, instead of performing page reverts, you should have discussed the fan site being deleted on the talk page. <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">]</font></b> 07:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | :You violated the ]. A fan site is not considered to be controversial, if the content of the site is not libellous. However, placing ]lous statements on wikipedia is. Previous to the block, instead of performing page reverts, you should have discussed the fan site being deleted on the talk page. <b><font color="#009900" face="georgia">]</font></b> 07:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock reviewed|1= | |||
| block by rogue admin, known sock puppet, was reverting vandilise he doing, he hop onto admin account. please|decline=Definitely a 3RR violation over the inclusion of an entry in the filmography section of ]: , , , . It's an open-and-shut case. — ''']]''' 07:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
Revision as of 07:09, 19 March 2007
Exceptions Since the rule is intended to prevent edit warring, reverts which are clearly not such will not breach the rule. Since edit warring is considered harmful, exceptions to the rule will be construed narrowly.
Since reverting in this context means undoing the actions of another editor or editors, reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule.
Other exceptions to the rule include the following:
Reverting unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material about living persons (see Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons)
Next time be more careful
69.132.199.100 06:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- You violated the three revert rule. A fan site is not considered to be controversial, if the content of the site is not libellous. However, placing libellous statements on wikipedia is. Previous to the block, instead of performing page reverts, you should have discussed the fan site being deleted on the talk page. Real96 07:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
69.132.199.100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
block by rogue admin, known sock puppet, was reverting vandilise he doing, he hop onto admin account. please
Decline reason:
Definitely a 3RR violation over the inclusion of an entry in the filmography section of Shelby Young: , , , . It's an open-and-shut case. — Coredesat 07:09, 19 March 2007 (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.