January 2024

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Frank Lampard. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
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 ~~~~)).  Aoidh (talk) 23:04, 21 January 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).

StarryNightSky11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will promise to refrain from this behaviour in future, even if 0RR or 1RR restrictions are temporarily applied, except in cases of obvious vandalism, I will also use talk pages to use BRD instead of constant reverting as I release this isn't acceptable and would rather remain civil and friendly with fellow editors here, the block is no longer necessary and I will make the proper actions to stop this happening in the future -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I have read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will promise to refrain from this behaviour in future" is the type of appeal admins generally see from new editors, not ones who are on their third block for edit warring. Also, you've said this before, and yet...here we are. Ponyobons mots 23:35, 22 January 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.

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).

StarryNightSky11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I should show more maturity from being an experienced editor, sometimes I find it hard to take a break and come back, I do have aspirations to become an admin one day, I will make sure to take a step back in future if things get heated and show a more level head should disputes arise StarryNightSky11 ☎ 23:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a material improvement on your last request which was just declined. They're is no explanation as to why you were edit warring, no explanation of why you did not stick to your earlier commitments, and no explanation as why this time would be any different. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:44, 22 January 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.


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

StarryNightSky11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I got carried away with my recent edit warring, and I do not wish to continue with that behaviour in future, I want to be a valuable and committed member of the Wikipedia Community, and I will do my best to stick to that. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 6:50 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

User has a agreed to an indefinite 1RR, and blocking admin has agreed. Valereee (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be open to a 1-revert restriction, StarryNightSky? Valereee (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee Yes I would, it would help me improve and help me refrain from edit wars even after the restriction expired. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 03:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a restriction that would need to be appealed, not one that would automatically expire. The edit-warring issue has been a problem literally since your first edits. Valereee (talk) 10:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to an unblock if there's an indefinite 1RR restriction in place, though stressing to StarryNightSky11 that indefinite does not mean infinite. - Aoidh (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and Aoidh:. Of course that's fine, I'm imagining that after so long, that if my edits have a good pattern that, on appeal, the restriction could be lifted. Aoidh yeah I'm aware that indefinite is simply no expiration, but isn't necessarily infinite. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 14:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee Am I able to reveret my own edits without restriction? -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reverting yourself isn't considered a reversion in this case. Valereee (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryNightSky11 and Valereee: I have to say though I'm not impressed that their first edit after being unblocked was to continue to edit war on one of the pages that contributed to this block in the first place (context). - Aoidh (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just came here to warn this editor about exactly that. I see that you've beat me to it. Anwegmann (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
StarryNightSky, there is a discussion about the piping links thing at WT:FOOTY#Frank Lampard, would be good if you could contribute thoughts there rather than edit war over piped links. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed, either. And without bothering to open a section on talk. SNS11, please explain. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee Given that their accepted unblock statement said "I got carried away with my recent edit warring, and I do not wish to continue with that behaviour in future" and their very first edit was to go back and carry on the edit war for which they got blocked, I would be tempted to simply reinstate the block. Black Kite (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose that. Valereee (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've set it to the original expiry date, but no objection to anyone adjusting it as they feel appropriate. StarryNightSky11 please note that you are still under an indefinite 1RR restriction once this block expires. - Aoidh (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

StarryNightSky11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wasn't aware that making that change would constitute edit warring I simply made a change. If not allowed then I'll refrain from doing it again and edit articles I haven't been editing recently that caused the edit warring. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 3:56 pm, 24 January 2024, last Wednesday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Appellant agrees to WP:0RR. I encourage appellant to review WP:DR-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After you were unblocked you made this edit, the same edit that you first made on 14:13, January 18, 2024, and then when that was reverted (showing that it was contentious) you made the same edit again three times within 7 minutes of each other on January 21, 2024 at 22:06, 22:10, and 22:13 (with an inappropriate edit summary). Repeatedly reinserting your preferred changes and undoing the changes of others when it is known that there is a disagreement about that content is edit warring. You did not not simply make a change, it was a contentious change and a continuance of the same edit war that contributed to the block in the first place without any attempt to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]


In future, I'll discuss it on the talk page, and only make edits where I wasn't involved recently, so as not to continue any edit war, as I realise that such edits would continue the edit war, and I do not intend to continue any. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh: I'm inclined to decline, cause they don't know when they are edit warring. On the other hand, is this sufficient to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: It doesn't sound too different than their unblock request from a few days ago and after being unblocked they immediately returned to edit warring despite what they stated there, so I'm not particularly persuaded by the same commitment worded slightly differently. - Aoidh (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Dfo. SNS11 doesn't seem to understand what edit warring is. I'm wondering if what this editor needs is 0RR? That would prevent thinking since 24 hours had gone by, a revert was okay, and would force them to the talk page first, every time. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am now fully aware what edit warring is and are willing to abide by a 1RR in definitely and steer clear of the articles involved until a consensus has been reached. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 15:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise that making a further edit would continue an edit war, but now I am fully aware and will refrain from making such edits. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WP:0RR is the way to go. If reverted, you ,may not revert. I guess we could unblock on that condition. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking it's the only solution here. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:0RR looks like the unblock condition of choice. That means that you cannot revert in turn if you are reverted, and that does not mean waiting for a time limit to expire. No reverts at all. And you cannot say that you forgot and made a mistake. @Aoidh: How does this sound? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, please describe WP:DR in your own words. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to an unblock conditional upon a 0RR restriction. - Aoidh (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh I'll accept 0RR -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 19:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also @Valereee and Deepfriedokra: StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits into your unblock and you have already reverted, and though it was reverting the addition of an image that did not exist, that is not an exception under Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. More concerning, however, is that after being unblocked your first edit is this on a WP:GENSEX topic; you received a ds alert on January 21, presumably in response to this edit to Man and this edit to Woman. While not strictly a revert as far as I can tell, the edit to Fellatio is in substance a continuation of an edit war from June 2023 (Example 1, Example 2). As the unblocking admin I'll defer to User:Deepfriedokra regarding the 0RR and WP:GENSEX issue on whether they feel any action is needed. However, please note that being under a 0RR restriction means that unless it is clearly and unambiguously an exception listed at Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions, reverting is a violation of that restriction. - Aoidh (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed above 'Looks like WP:0RR is the way to go. If reverted, you, may not revert' that if I'm reverted, I must not revert, however I wasn't aware I couldn't revert something where I hadn't been reverted, I assumed it was specifically I can't if I have been reverted. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 06:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Fine. Moving forward. No reverts at all. Never, ever. Even for the exceptions, in my opinion. You get off with a warning due to a lack of clarity on my part. This loophole mentality does not augur well for the future. You really like playing with fire, don't you. And it looks like we need to add a TOPIC BAN on WP:GENSEX, as you are being disruptive. I'll leave that to @Aoidh:.. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Recidivism. Continued reverts after I clarified no reverts at all. (Courtesy @Aoidh:).
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 ~~~~)).  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

StarryNightSky11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I hadn't seen your message until after I'd made the reverts, plus with you stating only if I'm reverted, I assumed regular reverting e.g. Vandalism etc was okay. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 7:52 am, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Okay, I can see that. But I think no reverts for now is for the best. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SHS11, go edit Simple Wikipedia for a couple months, actively and unproblematically. You don't have any restrictions there, but I very strongly recommend you do not make any reversions of anything whatsoever without opening a talk section first to explain your proposed changes. Then come back here, show us that edit history, and request an unblock. Valereee (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More