Jump to content

User talk:Winterysteppe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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).

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

Request reason:

Here goes

I am appealing this check user block. Recently, everyone has seen a series of vandals targeting numerous people, most notably me. I had filed an SPI on the trolls, but was denied be cause those accounts were already blocked. I filed again with one goal: for the check user to hard block the IP address from editing again. Yes I socked with the account whinterysteppe. I created just that account to encourage a endorsed SPI. This time it worked, and backfired spectacularly. Amid hence my block.


Yes I screwed up. I messed up by socking. Thus, I have broken some of the solid rules that Wikipedia is built upon. For that, I deeply apologize for the crap that occurred. I am appealing the block because

  • i will not create any other accounts to sock
  • I will respect the rules and not deal with vandals anymore

Decline reason:

And then five minutes later you're doing it again. Nope. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:24, 16 April 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

here let me give a reason. I had the Altnernate Frigid Soil intended to be on computers not secure. I did not intend to Sockpuppet after that one account. As for the other accounts, I intended one of them to be a fresh start. The others can stay blocked but I definitely would appreciate using one to edit Wikipedia and leave this one behind. .

Decline reason:

Considering the extent of your confirmed socking, I can't see any admin unblocking you at the moment - I certainly will not, and I like to think I'm one of the more lenient ones. I think the advice from Oshwah below is spot on. I urge you to spend six months away from en.wiki and working on Simple, and then request unblock here under the Standard Offer with a good record on Simple to show how well you can work on Wikimedia projects. You should also seriously consider taking up Oshwah's kind offer of mentorship at Simple. If you go along with this suggestion, you're welcome to ping me here in six months when you make an unblock request, and I will consider it favourably. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2016 (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.

A message to you

[edit]

Winterysteppe - It's honestly a real bummer to see you in this situation. You're a great guy to talk to, and it was always fun running into you on my talk page. From our interactions, I know that you're an intelligent person and your edits show that you're a dedicated editor on Wikipedia. That being said... I know that you know that you messed up, man. You knew that creating a sock puppet account was against Wikipedia policies and that it was the wrong thing to do, and the reason that you did so wasn't worth it. But... I also feel that, while you knew it wasn't okay to do what you did, you were unaware of the severity of the offense and the sanctions that would result from doing so. As I recommended to you earlier: you need to take a six-month break per Wikipedia's standard offer policy, focus your contributions on the Simple English Wikipedia while you wait, learn from your mistake, don't create any more accounts (lol), and come back when it's time. I really hope that you learn from this, that you don't give up and leave, and that I see you back here. I wish you the best of luck :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I also edit on the Simple English Wikipedia. Can I be your mentor during the next six months? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Socking

[edit]

Well, it seems that another sock was blocked. Now, this really does beg a couple of simple questions:

  • Are you still interested in editing Wikipedia now or in the future?
  • How do you want to be remembered here?
If you are not interested at all, then you can simply leave the confines of the computer screen and move on to something new. No more worrying about keeping your socks hidden or about getting unblocked. If, however, you are interested in coming back in the future, then the single worst thing you could possibly do for yourself would be to keep socking. Admins tend not to like that, to say the least. Just wait it out.
As to my second point, you could try to get an unblock later, after a while. You never know, and you might just be able to rejoin the community. Or, you could simply step away and no one will think the worse of it.

Regards,

GABHello! 11:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad:, if you mind joining me in the IRC #wikipedia-en, I would prefer to answer those questions there than here. Or, we can talk by email. Send me an email@ Winterysteppe (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought as GAB and was disappointed to see a new sock blocked this week. As long as you continue down this road, you will never be able to edit as a regular editor and be able to collaborate with other editors. Socks are eventually discovered and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Winterysteppe is already too full of accounts. Please take a break from Wikipedia and return in a few months with a sincere unblock request that can be considered so you might return to editing. Liz Read! Talk! 12:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz:, and i take it you might consider a unblock request? Also, im not convinvced a sincere unblock request will be granted, even if I make a bunch of positive contributions to Simple.wiki. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz:, @GeneralizationsAreBad:, I have emailed both of you. If you care about that I have said, please respond. Winterysteppe (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop Messaging me here

[edit]

As you can see, I am CheckUser blocked. However, I am offered a Standard Offer in 6 months time. I will log off permanently and not respond to any sort of messages. Please for the sake of God, EMAIL ME INSTEAD. I do not want to log in again. I'll see you all later. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


oh and @Oshwah:, I'll IRC message you when i get to the time to unblock request. Don't worry i'll put an effort on making Simple Wiki better. Winterysteppe (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #207

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Wikidata's coverage as of April 2016
Difference of Wikidata's coverage between April 2016 and 6 month before

Wikidata weekly summary #208

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

This Month in GLAM: April 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Wikidata weekly summary #209

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #210

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

simple.wiki

[edit]

I see you've been blocked over there too for the abuse of multiple accounts. My question to you is, Winterysteppe, do you actually wish to continue editing over here, or are you no longer interested in contributing positively? The thing is, I think you are a likable person, and I would endorse your unblock if you took the Standard Offer, but this needs to stop. You're now blocked on two wikis; what are your prospects here now? I agree with Oshwah, it is disappointing to see a productive editor like you messing up like this, and you know you're messing things up. My advice to you would be to just take a break from all wikis (there's plenty to do in the real world!), don't make any more accounts, and come back next year. That way, your request may still stand a chance of being accepted - because at the rate things are going, I don't see you getting unblocked. --PatientZero talk 16:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to notify Mike V, GeneralizationsAreBad, and Oshwah who have been more than helpful with this case. I would like to thank all parties involved, including those I didn't notify, for their patience in this matter. --PatientZero talk 16:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Blocked on the Simple 'Pedia too? Muffled Pocketed 16:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patient Zero: -sure? I'm looking at the block log? Muffled Pocketed 16:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - You put Winterysteppe as the performer. Easily done! Type his name into the other one. --PatientZero talk 16:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And there you have it. Cheers PZ. Gutting though. Muffled Pocketed 16:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: here you go --PatientZero talk 16:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the edit conflict Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I agree, it is disappointing, and what's more he knows he's messing things up... --PatientZero talk 17:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries PZ. Unfortunately the socking has carried on here too. Muffled Pocketed 17:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still happening here Fortuna? What's the most recent account? --PatientZero talk 17:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Patient Zero User:Etimena, apparently. I wonder if we should take this to one of our TPs actually? Muffled Pocketed
OK, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - should we continue under the burger? :) Thanks for the information. --PatientZero talk 17:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Patient Zero. Thanks for notifying me about this information. I agree that this is very disappointing news. I honestly think that we did our very best to try and help him. It feels almost like a failure on my part, because I wanted very badly for him to learn and be able to come back. All I can say is that, from the very beginning (when he was indefinitely blocked on the English Wikipedia), he knew that what he was doing was wrong. He continued creating additional accounts despite his indefinite block here (again, knowing that it was a policy violation). The fact that he did this again on the Simple Wiki tells me that spending additional effort trying to mentor and coach him is a waste of time. He made his choice, and (as saddening as it is), I have to know when it's time to move on...... :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think we're done here. The continued socking and cross-wiki abuse are past the point of no return. GABgab 21:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses Oshwah and GeneralizationsAreBad. You haven't failed at all Oshwah, don't feel as if you have. --PatientZero talk 09:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Koala Tea Of Mercy - Ehh, he's opened more than just one. See here. :-( ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh now that is just plain sad pathetic. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that page should include Winterystoppe too. It's been blocked but apparently isn't associated with that list page. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 01:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koala Tea Of Mercy and Oshwah: The last time I checked the category of Winterysteppe's sock puppets a little while ago, there were 24 sock puppets. Now there's 27. It's very unfortunate. —MRD2014 T C 19:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Koala Tea Of Mercy. Sadly this user's behaviour and socking can no longer be helped or prevented - it is time to move on. He's even personally attacked you on User talk:TheDwellerCamp in a previous revision. I do commend your perseverance with this user. --PatientZero talk 10:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, time to move on. Thank you. However, not being one to leave on a sour note I thought I might add a little levity to this situation... {{listen|filename=OopsIDitItAgainSample.ogg|title={{font|text=Winterysteppe's Theme Song|font=Comic Sans MS|size=14pt|color=blue}} |description={{font|text=Determined by a careful analysis of Wintereysteppe's '''''many''''' explanations for repeated sockery.|font=Comic Sans MS|size=11pt|color=red}} |pos=left |format=[[Ogg]]}} PING: Patient Zero, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, Etimena, Oshwah, GeneralizationsAreBad, MRD2014, Mike V

PMSL Koala Tea Of Mercy - made my day :-) --PatientZero talk 15:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep brilliant KToM even made listening to Britney bearable! Muffled Pocketed
I may have performed a terrible rendition of this song on the karaoke machine on New Year's Eve last year Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi! :-) --PatientZero talk 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #211

[edit]
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

This Month in GLAM: May 2016

[edit]


Headlines
Read this edition in full • Single-page

To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here.

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADMINISTRATORS PLEASE READ

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Let's do this So I'm new here and I just joined a couple WikiProjects. I joined the Military History WikiProject and was going through the names and saw this guy, Winterysteppe, was blocked. Curious as always, I went to do some research on why he was blocked, if he appealed, etc., and saw what he did. I ALSO saw that he was allowed to appeal his ban in six months, around October 2016. I think that I could be his 'lawyer' for this appeal, see that he gets a fair 'trial' and whatnot (I watch a LOT of Law&Order). He obviously can't reply in any way, but I feel it would be in his best interest to have a random person with no bias represent him with their own argument, rather than him argue the same argument for a third time (we saw where that got him the other times). Let me ask a question to begin: [To what extent did Winterysteppe sock-puppet? How many fake accounts did he make and for what purpose did he use them?] Please do not make a decision on this appeal, but rather message me the answers to the questions I impose. I'll try to edit the appeal ASAP with my next question, and then the cycle repeats until I make my final statement and you make a decision. You guys don't even have to listen to me, but please give me a chance to argue for someone out of the best intentions. The questions will be in [brackets].

(If Winterysteppe is seeing this, I am not trying to destroy you or waste your ban appeal in any way. I am doing this out of the best of intentions. 'Random acts of kindess' and all that.)

Thank you for listening

UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are only considered when made by the blocked user. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2016 (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.

Regarding Arsh Shah Dilbagi

[edit]

I have been managing the page for a while but there are severe problems pertaining to Wiki policies. Kindly check if you can contribute to rectify the same otherwise the page will be deleted soon.

SteveDorf (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stargate Reboot Trilogy

[edit]

Hello, Winterysteppe. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Stargate Reboot Trilogy".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 14:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rolls Royce Cullinan has been accepted

[edit]
Rolls Royce Cullinan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Jupitus Smart 14:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hurricane Fiona (2016) (September 2)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Garchy was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at 2016_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Tropical_Storm_Fiona. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This is currently covered under the 2016 Atlantic hurricane season article. While it could possibly be expanded into a separate article its genesis would preferably be using that paragraph as a starting point - not to mention this was a "Tropical Storm" and not a Hurricane in 2016.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Garchy (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Winterysteppe, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Garchy (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Hurricane Fiona (2016) concern

[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Hurricane Fiona (2016), a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Winterysteppe, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

BOVINEBOY2008 23:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winterysteppe&oldid=1160913093"