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]
More