User talk:TheBishopAndHolyPrince

March 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked for apparently disruptive editing, but there has been no evidence of this supplied with the block, and no justification how this is supposedly disruptive. This is not justified and my edits have not been disruptive nor have they vandalised or contained abusive commentary. I ask that the block be removed. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2024 (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.

@Yamla How can I be expected to explain myself when I have not been shown or told what I have apparently done wrong? I have not been disruptively or abusively editing and my edits and creations have been efficient and productive. If I have done something wrong and you are able to show me what I have apparently done wrong then I would be willing to consider to apologise and take other steps for the future. It is unfair how it just says disruptive editing but does not give me examples where editing is purportedly disruptive. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of warnings that you acknowledged (by blanking them) here on this talk page. Perhaps you should start there. I didn't block you so have nothing else to say. --Yamla (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't given any warnings? I haven't been shown what I have apparently done wrong? How is that fair? I have done nothing but improve Wikipedia with productive contributions. I have taken time out of my life to do this voluntarily. I deserve an explanation. @Bbb23 may be able to also clarify how the edits were purportedly disruptive?

21:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC) TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla @Bbb23 I have seen the commentary on @User talk:TSventon. I did think I was just helping: I had to go out of my way in my own time to manually rename all of the categories not knowing that it would require discussion, which was all the more apparent given that someone had agreed with what I said that the category should be renamed to match with the article. I am sorry if this caused an issue, but it was not out of malice, and as I have said already all of my previous edits have been productive. Where I have previously got it wrong I have entered consensus talks: for instance with the Foreign Secretary article. I would ask therefore that this block be removed. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that the "consensus talk" regarding Foreign Secretary is a shining example of someone who genuinely seeks consensus in a civil and collaborative discussion. Your comments for the most part are combative and demeaning. I find your explanation as to your recent actions deficient and unconvincing, so I am not going to unblock you. That said, you're free to make another unblock request and a different administrator will review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Foreign Secretary article underlines that when I have previously taken one stance I have after the proper procedures have been explained followed the procedure correctly. I have not demeaned anyone. That would infer that I have used derogatory language towards someone when quite clearly I have not. In any event, this is a separate incident and it is not like I went and deleted an entire page or vandalised a page. If anything, I was trying to match the name of the category with the name of the parent article, the only thing 'I got wrong' was the procedure I followed, which I have tried to explain myself, which I believe reasonably does explain myself. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon I have seen your talk page, but because I am banned I have been unable to reply. You are free to communicate here, but also see above :) TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheBishopAndHolyPrince, I explained to Bbb23 that you didn't follow the categories for discussion procedures, and I have read your explanation here that that was not deliberate. If you have questions, you can ping me and ask here. TSventon (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said sorry and that I am willing to follow proper procedure henceforth. Surely this demonstrates a willingness to follow the rules and is enough to have the account unblocked? I was literally getting all CAs and CCAs up to speed with time that is why I was creating new pages, which are all factually correct. I have, for the most of my part, save for the Foreign Secretary instance, never had any issues with my editing. If I was going to edit war or abuse other editors, as has been alleged, then I am confident that there would be evidence to substantive this subsequent to being unblocked about the Foreign Secretary article, but there is no such evidence. All my other edits have primarily been in relation to politics and legislation, some of which other editors have helpfully supplemented. The CAACCA article is a prime example of this: I simply changed the name to the article; others split it up with a short introduction but then two subsequent paragraphs explaining both a CA then a CCA and their similarities. This is a prime example of collaborative working with other users. I have never breached the 3RR. Given the matters as set out, I would respectfully request that the block be lifted forthwith. Thank you for your kind assistance :) TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Fayenatic London I make you aware of the above too given you have had active discussion on TSventon's talk page. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I've encountered this user twice: at the discussion at Talk:Foreign Secretary you refer to and at Lord Chief Justice. On both occasions they exhibited the same attitude - WP:BATTLE, unwillingness to communicate (see the number of comments to the their talk page they simply blank without engaging), a problematic combination of cluelessness on policy but an absolute certainty that what they are doing is right (Dunning-Kruger). Their lack of understanding of their poor behaviour at Talk:Foreign secretary shown in the above post is typical. If they are to be unblocked I would suggest that they need to acknowledge these issues and undertake to improve their engagement with other editors and recognise that their lack of experience means that the need to listen more to what other editors are telling them. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I subsequently engage with other users for consensus on the Foreign Secretary RfC? Also, I had moved the page Lord Chief Justice but then you reverted it: I did not insist nor have an "edit war" which would have to had been present to establish a pattern. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You were repeatedly told by multiple editors that your attempt at an RfC was malformed and you dismissively stuck to your guns. You clearly didn't know what an RfC question should look like and there's no particular reason why you should given your level of experience. But given that, most people would have listened to what was being said to them rather than just replying "lol". You edit warred at Lord Chief Justice and when I tried to communicate with you about it, you refused to engage and blanked my post.[1]. You've done this multiple times with other editors. This is a collaborative project and that's not appropriate behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I have apologised and learned as cited above. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I have apologised and learned as cited above." I don't understand, where is that? I see a narrow acceptance of what you did on categorisation was wrong, but nothing else. I don't see any acceptance (or understanding) that your whole approach on WP needs to change. As examples (and they are just examples) do you understand what's wrong with this or this? Earlier on, Yamla suggested that a good starting point in developing an understanding is reviewing the warnings you've received on your talk page and which you've blanked. That's good advice. DeCausa (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You previously had a 31-hour block because of your behaviour.[2] Beyond reading "I have apologised and learned", I'd like to see some acknowledgement that you understand where you went wrong and how you will act differently in future. The "lol" thing was pretty bad – it honestly looks as if you are here for the purpose of winning arguments rather than participating in a collaborative project. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have acknowledged where I have went wrong and apologised for this. But to say that I do not wish to participate collaboratively would be to preclude the fact that the vast majority of my contributions, as set out above, have been productive and helpful. It is also important to recognise that I did not vandalise a page or use abusive language on it whereas other banned users have. The hallmark of a disruptive and abusive user is therefore not present. I would ask in those circumstances that the ban be lifted. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Since the previous request for the block to be lifted, I have been supplied with the alleged disruptive behaviour. I was not supplied with this information when submitting the previous appeal; I could not provide an explanation if I had not been shown what I had done wrong. I have (see above) provided an explanation that the behaviour was not done out of malice to intentionally cause disruption. Advice has been given by other users as to act in the way forward, and I have apologised for any disruption that was caused. I have acknowledged my wrong and affirmed that I will not act like this henceforth. I wish to continue to provide productive and helpful contributions to Wikipedia and I consequently ask that this block be lifted immediately. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An apology is helpful, but to unblock you we will need to know what specifically you have learned here and what specifically you will change going forward.(such as, amongst other issues, not threatening legal consequences). 331dot (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2024 (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.

@331dot I have not made legal threats. If anything has been inferred as such then I apologise further. Moreover, I have recognised to take things to the talk page which I did in relation to Foreign Secretary to display David Cameron's title. That is an ongoing consensus. I have also explained the situation about the category page which another user explained the correct way forward would be to allow it to remain on the CfD page for renaming/merging. I have apologised if this caused any disruption, and said that I am willing to comply with this procedure henceforth. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

The background is set out above. I have provided apologies and learned from my behaviour as set out above and have further provided repeated assurances that I will adhere to proper procedure henceforth. I would therefore ask that the appeal be allowed and the block be lifted. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're still treating this as a kind of legal(istic) proceeding where doing the right things and saying the right words automatically must lead to an unblock as the process is else so very unfair and perhaps even illegal. That's not how it works. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2024 (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.

Hi, TheBishopAndHolyPrince, I would suggest is a good idea to include the detail of your appeal in the appeal, rather than saying the background is set out above. This is your third appeal of the same block so it is in your interest to make the appeal easy for any admin to read. Also I notice that you have argued here that most of your editing is productive, so you are not a disruptive editor. This is not a good argument as editing that disrupts progress toward ... building the encyclopedia is still Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, even when done in good faith and accompanied by useful contributions.

331dot, please could you provide a diff where the editor threatened legal consequences. They need to know what they are doing wrong (and should ask when they don't understand). TSventon (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon, had you seen the previous unblock discussion? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From that discussionm which TBaHP blanked:

"Personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, treating other editors as opponents to be disparaged rather than engaged and convinced: [3] (after a final warning), [4], [5], [6]. Acroterion (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They beat me to it(thanks); this user said they would go to the UK internet regulator with a formal complaint and said Wikipedia would be fined. 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there was no threat. I simply set out the law which applies and the responsibilities of online platforms under the Online Safety Act 2023, including what the regulator may do if they find that an online platform has failed to comply with OSA. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no threat – you just said which bad things may happen if others don't do what you ask for.

Special:Diff/1211543167, with "You have not provided ..." as perhaps its most directly problematic sentence, was pretty inappropriate. And later, Special:Diff/1211608119 was also exemplary of the issues: Conditionally offering to retract the "commentary alleged to be a personal attack". Or above, in the current unblock discussion, "I have been supplied with the alleged disruptive behaviour". "I have already said sorry and that I am willing to follow proper procedure henceforth. Surely this demonstrates a willingness to follow the rules and is enough to have the account unblocked?"

And the answer is still "no", and I don't think we need further appeals. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities

A tag has been placed on Category:Combined authorities and combined county authorities indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above. TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS

UTRS appeal #86098 has been declined. JBW (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TheBishopAndHolyPrince. Thank you for your work on Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. Klbrain, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

A not uncontentious topic, with plenty of scope for expansion as the bill continues to progress.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, TheBishopAndHolyPrince. Thank you for your work on Sentencing Act 2020. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority

The article Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Primary-sourced stub of WP:CRYSTALBALL material

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLAR notice

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you created or have recently made significant changes to, Mayor of Greater Lincolnshire, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for pages, so it has been blanked and redirected to Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority. Three typical reasons for this are that: (1) the article's subject appears to fail our notability guidelines; (2) the article is unsourced; or (3) the sources used in the article are unreliable. The page's history is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Wikipedia or that this action was taken in error, then you may revert the edit that blanked and redirected the page.

Wikipedia:Your first article has more information about creating articles, and you may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]