User talk:U-Mos/Archives/2011/May

Day of the Moon 3RR

You're doing exactly the same thing I did the day after I saw HP7, and I insisted on being blocked for it. Please take a break. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

U-Mos/Archives/2011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As I wrote in my last edit summary, I was reverting a clear consensus violation which is permitted under 3RR. This edit excepted, I had already agreed with the blocking admin to take a break from the article having reached 3RR. U-Mos (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You'll need to show us where at WP:3RR an exception is made for "reverting a clear consensus violation"; this was not a self-revert, a user space revert, an edit by a banned user, obvious vandalism, a copyvio, a removal of illegal content, a BLP violation, or a featured article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:18, 2 May 2011 (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.

If someone could inform me how editing against a consesnsus that is clearly signposted by notes in the article is not vandalism? U-Mos (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bringing this up on WP:ANI#3RR blocking for reverting back to consensus-agreed version?. Something seems wrong about this. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Masem, I appreciate that. So you're aware, the reverts that took me to 3RR and led to Sarek's warning were concerning changes to the Plot section as a whole and not the sentence the discussion concerned, eg. [1], and took place after the pregnancy scan discussion was complete. Following this, my edits on the article were to perform a partial self-revert, to fix the accidental undoing of this edit during the same revert sequence, some minor and uncontroversial fixes and the final edit we know about, where I was especially careful to explain in the edit summary why it was not a violation of 3RR. Thanks once again. U-Mos (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And that's not to mention that most if not all of my reverts were, for want of a better term, obviously correct: undoing additions of detail to a plot section tagged as too detailed, actions against consensus, removal of sourced continuity because it was a "spoiler". It's far too late in the night/early in the morning to check over all my edits on the article, but the only potentially controversial reverts I can think of would be those I initially made before the pregnancy scan discussion kicked off (and I'm certain there weren't three of them). And at any rate, Sarek clearly didn't feel I warranted more than a friendly warning from my edits prior to the final three linked above. U-Mos (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked you, as most of the users at ANI seem to agree. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)