BlueDome

3RR violation on Taba Summit

Hello Bluedome, I should inform you that you have violated the WP:3RR policy on the Taba Summit article. If you do not revert yourself you could be blocked from editing wikipedia. Please use this opportunity.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BlueDome. Moshe is correct. Moshe and his associates on that page specialize in the 3RR trap. They seem to act as a blanking team. One or the other will do a blanking revert twice in 24 hours. Then someone else on the team will do a blanking revert the third time. That way none of them revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. But they trap someone else into reverting 3 times in 24 hours. 3RR rules require them to warn you on your user talk page before they can notify an admin. Thus the Moshe "friendly" warning to you.

So I suggest going ahead and reverting your last change. It could prevent you from being blocked for 24 hours. Self-reversion in a timely fashion will prevent most admins from blocking you since it is your first 3RR warning.

If Amoruso blanks the section one more time he will be in violation of the rule against simple blanking vandalism. Because he has given nothing but one frivolous 2-word explanation ("not encyclopedic") for all his blanking of that section of the page. See my discussion on the article talk page. I have put up the final blanking warning template on the article talk page and on his user talk page. If he blanks without explanation again, I will notify an admin.

Amoruso deletes the blanking warnings from his talk page. You can choose to delete this whole thread from your talk page too, later, if you want to. There is no Wikipedia requirement to keep anything on your talk page. Blocks are recorded in your block log, so admins can find that info there. And the warning message can be found in the revision history.

Moshe does not qualify for the blanking warning because he has discussed his deletion of the section on the article talk page. Of course, as you and I know, his reasons make no sense because they do not apply, and he does not engage in any real discussion. So we may need to get an admin to protect the page eventually if he does not engage in some genuine, good-faith, attempt at resolving the wording of that section to everybody's satisfaction and the wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for your efforts on the article talk page in getting that discussion to happen.

I suggest putting something on your user page. Even one sentence. The reason, probably, for those weird "suspicious" edit messages from Tewfik, could be that Tewfik found nothing on your user page, nor on your user talk page, and it was hard to tell if you actually had a wikipedia user account. Tewfik may not have figured out how to click your user contributions link. :) --Timeshifter 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, this "tag-team" works to push their POV on Wikipedia. But we should work to achieve consensus, as their positions are so weak that, I am confident, other editors will agree with us.

As regards my user page, I won't add anything to it only because otherwise sloppy editors will consder me "suspicious". It is their problem, not mine.

Have a good day.--[[BlueDome]] 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)