User talk:Do you like apples

January 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Anarcho-capitalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what you're looking at. This was not a continuation of the edit war. I only re-instated one out of 16 changes and it has been discussed on the talk page. Nobody has voiced disagreement with this edit. Do you like apples (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed 9K characters of referenced info against consensus, straight after expiring of the block for edit warring on the same article (and blanking all the relevant discussion on your talk page). If it is not edit warring then what is the correct name for this? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it was not against consensus. nobody has said they disagree with that edit and one person agreed with it. the edits everybody is saying they disagree with are the ones changing 'state' to 'government'. the others don't appear to have any resistance. Do you like apples (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? At the bottom of your list of edits, I see at least one user who is opposing all the changes.

That said, the behavioural problem is that, the very first edit you made after your block expired was to remove about 9k worth of characters from an article—the same article you had been blocked for removing large blocks of text. Coupled with the fact that you knew discussion was ongoing but did not (re-)engage there shows that, left unblocked, you would continue to disrupt.

Frankly, the only way I'd consider unblocking you is if you accepted a revert restriction (0RR or 1RR) for the next week. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to revert anybody if they reverted me and I would be fine with that. I don't think it's fair though that I be immediately blocked if I just make an edit. That's what was done here. I was blocked the first time for edit warring, not just for editing the article. Do you like apples (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You redid an edit that had been undone. By definition, that's reverting. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had 16 edits reverted at once, the vast majority with no reason given. I don't think it's unreasonable that I re-instate individual edits where I think there is consensus or where nobody is objecting (the user saying revert them all was not disagreeing with all, he simply wasn't aware they had already been reverted). Do you like apples (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Do you like apples (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't think the blocking admin understands what they are seeing. The previous edit war was 16 edits which were being rolled back at once. People told me to discuss them and make them individually instead. So that's what I did. I listed them on the article talk page. This particular edit seemed to have consensus as nobody disagreed with it and another editor said they approved, so I made this one edit. Do you like apples (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with the blocking admin. When your previous block expired you went right back to the editing behavior that led to the block in the first place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User:Alex Bakharev also appears to be WP:INVOLVED having been involved in the edit war I was previously blocked for. Do you like apples (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A single revert of the removal of a large quantity of sourced material is not, in my view, enough to be considered involved in an edit war. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]