unblock 1 This is a continuation of conduct that got you blocked before which is why the block length has been increased per WP Blocking policy The length of this block was determined according to my previously having been blocked Yet the reason I was given for that first blocking was violation of 3RR I had NOT violated 3RR and I have not been given ANY other reason for the blocking so therefore I was wrongly blocked the first time Even since pointing this out and having the fact acknowledged I still have been offered no alternative explanation for why that initial block was legitimate Having been wrongly blocked the first time it follows that the length of time of this block is also wrongful 2 Instead of reverting and telling everyone else to stop edit warring please in future restrict yourself to discussing say the article content or how Wikipedia can best be improved by neutrally reporting what reliable sources have written on the subject The assumption here is that I have not discussed article content or how Wikipedia can best be improved by neutrally reporting what reliable sources have written on the subject which is an absolutely and demonstrably false presumption Good faith notwithstanding this demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the situation on the part of the blocking administrator If you look on the Talk page you will observe that I have been as active as any other editor in insisting that the 3rd paragraph comply with WP NPOV in discussion how to make this happen in seeking to form a consensus agreement etc As the assumption inherent in the reason given for the blocking being false the blocking is therefore wrongful The fact is that the version of my edit was discussed at great length and voted on and approved by a majority of editors and that it takes into account objections and concerns of others How is it edit warring to implement a version that has approval of a majority pending revision only after further discussion I require an explanation Short of that the block should be undone The fact is also that the versions other editors mostly using anonymous IP addresses made that UNDID the version that had majority approval were done without discussion without explanation without seeking approval and otherwise without making any attempt to reasonably come to an agreement on the wording despite REPEATED requests on my part as well as others that they comply with Wikipedia guidelines on conflict resolution and take their objections to the Talk page for peer consideration BEFORE making edits This is behavior that clearly does constitute edit warring Yet the fact is also that despite attempts on my part to get administrators involved to block editors who edit the 3rd paragraph without first raising their objections and proposed solutions on the Talk page the editors who have rejected the reasonable solution agreed on by the majority continue to have free reign to revert the version that had peer approval It is unproductive to block editors implementing the will of the majority who have gone out of their way to seek a solution through discussion and peer review of proposed changes who have appealed to admins to moderate the warring and who only make edits that have peer approval while editors acting defiance of that agreement are allowed free reign to revert the agreed upon wording According to WP BP the purpose and goals of blocking are fourfold 1 Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia 2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit 3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior can not continue and will not be tolerated 4 Encouraging a more productive congenial editing style within community norms 1 2 My edit did not damage the article It was discussed at length and had approval from a majority of editors pending revision following further discussion It is not a disruption to make edits implementing versions agreed upon by a majority in accordance with WP policy on conflict resolution The disruption is 100 the responsibility of editors who revert that version without discussion without such peer approval 3 4 By blocking editors who have gone out of their way to seek a reasonable solution and peer approval while editors who defy the majority decision on the 3rd paragraph are allowed free reign to continually revert the agreed version despite requests for moderation to prevent this from occurring the administration is discouraging rather than encouraging a more productive congenial editing style within community norms