Jump to content

User talk:Winterysteppe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winterysteppe (talk | contribs) at 16:45, 18 April 2016 (→‎A message to you: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Sandbox

Why are you edit warring at the sandbox? The IP is not doing anything wrong (except also edit warring). BethNaught (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no idea why i did that. Winterysteppe (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same question – do you know who the IP is? I blocked them, but will unblock in a minute; the point has been made.  —SMALLJIM  20:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No but i guess we thought we would have some fun undoing each other? Winterysteppe (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox is meant to be for testing stuff that would be useful when writing articles (see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox), not for practising edit warring – don't get dragged into it!  —SMALLJIM  20:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another impostor

User:Whlnterysteppe Adam9007 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. i checked his global contributions.... He did some stuff on other Wikis too. Winterysteppe (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

 CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse.

Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, including block evasion, performing "good hand, bad hand" edits (Whlnterysteppe, DesertGrass) and contributing to the same discussion with multiple accounts. (Winterysteppe, Outercrater) Mike V • Talk 20:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike V: Are you saying that Whlnterysteppe really is Winterysteppe? I thought he was an impostor? Adam9007 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are  Confirmed accounts. Mike V • Talk 21:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: So User:Whlnterysteppe is not an impostor, but a real sockpuppet of the real user? What about User:Winterystepe and User:Wimterysteppe? I (obviously) know for a fact that User:Adam90007 is not me, and I highly doubt that User:Oshwash is the same person as Oshwah:. I'm just trying to get my head around who's real and who isn't, who's been impersonating who etc. I'm very interested to know who had impersonated me, as I'm sure you can imagine. Adam9007 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I know that User:Oshwash was definitely not me. Although it's too bad I didn't create it as a doppelgänger - I should have thought that it could have been used to impersonate me. No worries though; I've tightened my doppelgänger list up. That will hopefully make impersonating me harder to do :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 22:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck? He fights vandalism like Cluebot NG! I have no clue what's going on. Peter Sam Fan 22:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical standpoint, only Whlnterysteppe is related to Winterysteppe. The other accounts are all confirmed to each other, but to a different individual. Mike V • Talk 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V: Shall I delete the impostor notice, or start an MfD or something? Adam9007 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike V:,@Peter SamFan:,@Oshwah:,@Adam9007:,Well, on the advice of Oshwah, I will appeal this. Winterysteppe (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the impostors were the EU referendum serial sockmaster. You know, the one that blanks user talk pages and replaces them with CSD tags, Level 4 vandalism warnings (4IM?) and a block notice. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is unbelievable. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur Fortuna. The only modus operandi I see for this is that he wanted attention, perhaps. Clearly someone who was being impersonated, as were Oshwah, Adam and I, but just wanted to see the SPIs continuing so that we would give him sympathy. Someone unaware of the fact that he would also be investigated as to eliminate the possibility that it was him, and heck, it was. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 16 April 2016 (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).

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

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]
@Oshwah: yes, I will take up your offer. As for everyone else, especially @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @Boing! said Zebedee: and @Chesnaught555:, clearly this my only one intended socking backfired. i shall see all of you in 6 months, if maybe. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
or maybe consider me retired Winterysteppe (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you've taken the offer. Indeed, I shall see you in six months, I hope. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chesnaught555:, What a dramatic way in my first year of editing. lol. And yeah I'll just step back in editing. I'll just be on and off. Sadly the earliest is in October. Winterysteppe (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Seems to be the best way forward. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 14:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to seeing you back too! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My response Winterysteppe (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:-D --Ches (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn, its bit of a chore having to rebuild trust here. *sigh* Winterysteppe (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be worth it in the long run. --Ches (talk) (contribs) 08:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have already made good progress towards that goal, both here on this page and in your email to me, and I look forward to welcoming you back in the future. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder- how set in stone is the six-month period? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not very firmly at all, and it's really quite soft stone ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Im gonna be bold and ask in 5 months. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winterysteppe: A shame it had to be this way. Ah, I shall start editing on Simple Wikipedia to try to keep in touch with you. I tried to become a rollback there, though there isn't enough vandalism! xD FiendYT ★ 04:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FiendYT:, would love to have you here at simple. Winterysteppe (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #205

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winterysteppe&oldid=715900457"