| Revision as of 20:06, 17 April 2014 editHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,847 edits You have been blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule on Ted Cruz. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:07, 17 April 2014 edit undoNazariyKaminski (talk | contribs)2,095 edits →April 2014: User:Cwobeel violated the 3RR rule but he did not get blocked, why the different treatment?Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| == April 2014 == | == April 2014 == | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''three days''' for ] and violating the ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] | ] 20:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''three days''' for ] and violating the ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. ] | ] 20:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)</p></div><!-- Template:uw-3block --> | ||
| {{unblock|reason=None. I'm guilty as charged. However, I am just curious why the individual that was engaging in the edit war with me was not also blocked. It seems to the only fair way to handle this. ] engaged in the edit war. It takes two people to have an edit war, usually, and ] clearly violated the 3RR rule. He reverted my edits four times in 24 hours. The diffs are as follows: | |||
| ;1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604398884&oldid=604377505 | |||
| ;2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604460456&oldid=604458805 | |||
| ;3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604506870 | |||
| ;4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604525782 | |||
| I would like to simply understand why ] has not been blocked but I have. I more than willing to sit down for three days, but ] needs to also.--] (]) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| }}. | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 17 April 2014
April 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
NazariyKaminski (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
None. I'm guilty as charged. However, I am just curious why the individual that was engaging in the edit war with me was not also blocked. It seems to the only fair way to handle this. User:Cwobeel engaged in the edit war. It takes two people to have an edit war, usually, and User:Cwobeel clearly violated the 3RR rule. He reverted my edits four times in 24 hours. The diffs are as follows:- 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604398884&oldid=604377505
- 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604460456&oldid=604458805
- 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604506870
- 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604525782
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=None. I'm guilty as charged. However, I am just curious why the individual that was engaging in the edit war with me was not also blocked. It seems to the only fair way to handle this. ] engaged in the edit war. It takes two people to have an edit war, usually, and ] clearly violated the 3RR rule. He reverted my edits four times in 24 hours. The diffs are as follows: ;1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604398884&oldid=604377505 ;2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604460456&oldid=604458805 ;3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604506870 ;4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604525782 I would like to simply understand why ] has not been blocked but I have. I more than willing to sit down for three days, but ] needs to also.--] (]) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=None. I'm guilty as charged. However, I am just curious why the individual that was engaging in the edit war with me was not also blocked. It seems to the only fair way to handle this. ] engaged in the edit war. It takes two people to have an edit war, usually, and ] clearly violated the 3RR rule. He reverted my edits four times in 24 hours. The diffs are as follows: ;1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604398884&oldid=604377505 ;2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604460456&oldid=604458805 ;3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604506870 ;4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604525782 I would like to simply understand why ] has not been blocked but I have. I more than willing to sit down for three days, but ] needs to also.--] (]) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=None. I'm guilty as charged. However, I am just curious why the individual that was engaging in the edit war with me was not also blocked. It seems to the only fair way to handle this. ] engaged in the edit war. It takes two people to have an edit war, usually, and ] clearly violated the 3RR rule. He reverted my edits four times in 24 hours. The diffs are as follows: ;1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604398884&oldid=604377505 ;2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=604460456&oldid=604458805 ;3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604506870 ;4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ted_Cruz&diff=next&oldid=604525782 I would like to simply understand why ] has not been blocked but I have. I more than willing to sit down for three days, but ] needs to also.--] (]) 22:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
.
Category: