Archives

1

Youhavehad beenblocked from editing from certain pages (Operation Raise the Colours) for a period of2 weeks foredit warring.Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk)20:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been seeking consensus on the article's talk page. I'm happy to abide by the terms of this block but I feel it's unfair that another editor has made four reverts today when I made one, and yet I'm the one who's been blocked.Stirchley.resident (talk)20:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stirchley.resident, this is becauseWP:ONUS requiresyou to find a consensus before re-adding material.~ ToBeFree (talk)21:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I'll be sure to do that in future.Stirchley.resident (talk)21:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who accepted the request.

Stirchley.resident(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I now understand that the onus is on me to seek consensus before adding disputed material to articles. My posts on the talk page demonstrate that I am doing this and I will not add the material concerned again until such time as consensus has been reached.Stirchley.resident (talk)21:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Okay, welcome back~ ToBeFree (talk)23:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may need a formalrequest for comment (RfC) to obtain a consensus in such a situation; I'd normally say athird opinion but there have already been four users' comments on the talk page. In any case, it is highly unlikely that you are in the right position to evaluate whether there is a consensus in a discussion you participated in, so it is also highly unlikely that you would be allowed to restore the material even if consensus has been reached. You'd (at least ideally) need to convince a neutral reviewer to do so, and that's unlikely to happen without an RfC. And as an RfC usually lasts a month, the block won't prevent you from anything you should currently do, while preventing actions you shouldn't currently perform.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll readWP:RfC. I understand the need for a neutral reviewer to assess consensus. Am I not allowed to make unrelated additions to the article though?Stirchley.resident (talk)22:21, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide at least one specific example of an unrelated helpful edit currently prevented by the block I'll remove it indeed.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I'd like to add a mention of this to the council responses section:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gv43lgez5o.Stirchley.resident (talk)22:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay; could you please provide the exact text you'd like to add, and describe as precisely as possible where it would be added?~ ToBeFree (talk)22:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be something along the lines of "In Sheffield, the council's highways contractor, Amey, reported that its staff were taking down flags in teams rather than alone, for safety reasons. The manager of the street cleaning contract told a council meeting that "It was quite shocking how we were treated by the public. It was very threatening and very aggressive". This would go after the existing sentence "Shropshire Council said that flags would stay up except for safety or maintenance reasons".Stirchley.resident (talk)22:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the line about Kemi Badenoch's comments on councils removing flags needs to be moved earlier, as it's out of sequence with the council responses now.Stirchley.resident (talk)22:33, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this proposal, I'd need a quote of exactly the text you'd like to move, and a precise description of where it would be moved.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to move "Writing in theDaily Mail, the Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch expressed the view that it was "shameful" for local councils to remove the flags" to the end of the first paragraph of the section. The comment was made in August, whereas many of the sources used for the paragraph it currently appears at the end of are from later, and it's misleading to suggest that Badenoch made the comment in the context of those reports.Stirchley.resident (talk)22:40, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!DeFacto, would you revert these edits if they were made, or are they uncontroversial enough?~ ToBeFree (talk)22:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what happened there. You made a comment about the Daily Mail being a bad source, but I'm not proposing use of the Daily Mail! The sentence is already in the article - and not because of me.Stirchley.resident (talk)23:01, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I removed my comment.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Sorry, couldn't keep up.Stirchley.resident (talk)23:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good. See the history of this page here to see what happened.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree, I don't see a problem in moving the Kemi Badenoch comment as suggested. I'm not the only other editor involved with that article though. --DeFacto (talk).23:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the onus rule doesn't mean I need to check with every editor before moving a sentence?Stirchley.resident (talk)23:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nah.Stirchley.resident, you maybe bold. You may just not edit war in case someone disagrees and reverts.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DeFacto thanks, yeah, but I wanted to rule out the most significant possible issue. Others disagreeing is fine.~ ToBeFree (talk)23:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove or archive all of this including the block notice; it was meant for your information and is not meant to be a wall of shame. If you want to set up an archive, feel free to copy the syntax from my talk page's source code (orHelp:Archiving (plain and simple); mine is comparatively complex).~ ToBeFree (talk)23:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Much appreciated.Stirchley.resident (talk)23:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]