User talk:Whirl editing

Also known as Edito*Magica. user talk: Edito*Magica .


Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #68

Hello & welcome!

Whirl editing...

Whirl editing is an experienced and trusted user who has been editing since July 13th 2007; however up until January 24th 2009, editing was done under his other user name: Edito*Magica. Edito*Magica was wrongly blocked from wikipedia after being accused of vandalism, and so Whirl editing is continuing where he left off, taking articles to new, dizzy heights of quality; appologies for the awful play on words!

You can leave a comment for Whirl editing or Edito*Magica in the Whirl pool below!

Helpful links

wikipedia: cheatsheet (a quick guide!)
Help:Wikitext examples (another useful guide!)

The Whirl pool (COMMENT HERE)

Topic: One Foot in the Grave article

Hi,

What do think about moving the character descriptions to a new page?...there is already character description in the plot section, and i think the character section does make the page a little too long? Tell me what you think. Thanks.Whirl*editing (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we discussed this before when you were Edito*Magica, but I still think it's a bad idea - the page needs character descriptions to make it comprehensive for readers. By comparison to some articles, the page isn't very long at all, and it's not justified to have a separate page for what are essentially six major characters. There aren't that many minor recurring characters, either, so it wouldn't even be justified as an extended page. In my experience, individual character pages tend to be rather poor quality, and if you look at Wikipedia article traffic statistics, spin-off pages are rarely viewed. Bob talk 15:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, articles about fiction should be discussed in a real-world context. The lists you have been creating do not conform to that guideline and are at risk of being deleted. The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. People not visiting spin-off pages has always been a concern of mine, and i will begin tidying the character descriptions up soon. Thanks.Whirl*editing (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topic: 'Whirl editing' blocked

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Edito*Magica (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Admitted on his user talk here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I understand that I was blocked for opening this new account (‘Whirl Editing’), after already having an account called ‘Edito*Magica’. However, the latter is no longer used and I had to create a new account after ‘Edito*Magica’ was blocked after being accused of vandalism; I share an I.P address with hundreds of others at university you see.

I can not see how this block is necessary. If you look at my contributions of this account and my old ‘Edito*Magica’ account, they are all constructive contributions. Edit warring that has occurred after getting into disagreements about articles in the past, have been resolved a long time ago. If opening more than one account violates Wikipedia policy, then I apologise. But I haven't created another account to vandalise, but so that i can continue making contributions to Wikipedia. My other account has been wrongly blocked, so i had to create another account. I've been editing since 2007, and have never vandalised Wikipedia. I hope you consider lifting the ban you have placed on me. Thanks for your time. Whirl editing 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I had to create a new account after ‘Edito*Magica’ was blocked after being accused of vandalism. Right; that's precisely why this account is blocked. You don't get to do that. It's not the account that's blocked; it's you. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:46, 28 January 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes but i have done NOTHING WRONG! I'm sick of being abused by admins, you're so bias and unfair, and ignore everything I say in my request! You have got nothing to ban me for; have you even bothered to look at the contributions I've made? I've done so much for Wikipedia and have been minding my own business improving articles...then you come along and block me! Why? What for? It IS SO FRUSTRATING TO BE BLOCKED WHEN I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG! Why shouldn't I open this new account? ' I've done nothing wrong. 'Edito*Magica' was blocked due a misunderstanding, and I've already served the time for SOME ONE ELSE'S CRIME, and can't help but convey a sense of anger! Talk to user talk: the JPS, he will tell you i'm i decent, if argumentative at times contributor to Wikipedia...why can't you just leave me to edit peacefully?! There is no reason to ban me, i'm making CONSTRUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS like I always have done, so where's the harm in that? Whirl editing 20:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

if you think the block of your original account was wrong, you must request unblock with that account. — Sandstein 21:52, 28 January 2009 (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.

That account's talk page is protected because of abuse. I've now protected this one too; you've used up your unblock requests with all accounts. Sandstein 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background on this set of accounts

Edito*Magica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edito*magico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Chris C. Nichols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Spidermancnichols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Whirl*editing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
195.195.128.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (from an unblock-auto request of Edito*Magica)

This diff appears to show that Chris C. Nichols is the same person as Edito*magica, and thus the same person as Whirl editing. The Nichols account stopped editing in July of 2007 but it is not currently blocked. I blocked Whirl editing because he announced on his talk page that he was evading the block on Edito*Magica. I gather that Spidermancnichols (talk · contribs) showed up to vandalize some articles that Edito*Magica was working on, and had the same IP, since Edito*Magica was hit by an autoblock on Spidermancnichols. (The unblock-auto is still visible on Edito*Magica's talk). There does seem to be some similarity of names between 'Chris C. Nichols' and 'Spidermancnichols'. The abuse of multiple accounts is clear. I am filling in these details due to the desire to see the unblock request fairly reviewed, but the amount of nonsense that's been going on does not inspire lifting the block. The editor, when he was adding content, seems to have been quarrelsome, judging from the number and content of the ANI reports that mention him. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to the list Whirl*editing (talk · contribs) (note the asterisk). As an ingenious attempt to dodge scrutiny, he created both accounts, and then primarily edited THIS talk page while using THAT account. Well, not so ingenious, since he was caught. The deeper he digs this hole, the worse it looks for him. Edito, if you are reading this, please send an email to ArbCom at WP:ARBCOM and request a review of your block. If you just keep creating new accounts, it is just going to get worse and worse for you.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added User:Whirl*editing to the list. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the editor can do now

Whirl editing wrote to me asking about Arbcom, which he thinks he can't appeal to since he is blocked. My own advice is to send email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org explaining why you should be unblocked. Blaming other people is not very persuasive, and it would be good if you would at least admit to using multiple accounts, and explain why you did so. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]