2005 (UTC) 

 :This was an inappropriate use of the three revert rule.  
 ::Quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule[]: 
 :::"The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars." 

 :This was not a sterile edit war but abusive and inappropriate behaviour by another editor.  Instead of imposing a block, that abusive and inappropriate behaviour by the other editor should have been dealt with.  Merely because a new user does not know the appropriate mechanisms on Wikipedia for raising an issue is not an excuse for apply the Three-revert rule in a case it is not designed or intended to cover.  The issue was raised and resolution requested.   

 ::Also quoted from Wikipedia:Three-revert rule []: 

 :::"Just because someone has violated the three revert rule does not mean they will be blocked. It is up to the administrator's discretion whether to take action." 

 :In a case of this nature the Administrator should have engaged in dialogue to resolve the issue and take action against the perpetrator of the abusive behaviour.  That did not happen.  When an editor who is also an Administrator behaves inappropriately that should be dealt with by another Administrator instead of attacking the innocent party.  This regrettably appears to be the application of double standards. 
 : 05:19, 12 December