User talk:Catnip the Elder

Catnip the Elder, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Catnip the Elder! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you previously edited using any other account? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it was usurped by the WMF in the great Username merge project of 2015 because someone on another wiki with 20 edits created the same username a month before me. So I had to create a new one. Catnip the Elder (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here with pretty much the same question as James.

I've carried out one of your template edit requests but the other two I've left because they appear non-trivial, I can't see any discussion about them nor any testcases to show the effect of the changes. Your edits show experience way above the 294 edits you're credited with, but without track-history I'm not taking chances on live templates. I thought I owed some explanation for why I answered one request and not the other two. Would you care to disclose your former account? (User:Bazj#Disclosure) and to provide more detail on your requests? Thanks, Bazj (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Basj, Thank you for the edit you did. With regard to the edits themselves I didn't really consider those to be controversial since they were only creating categorization of problems to help the projects fix issues. But I certainly understand if you don't want to do them. I also don't really think I have done anything that difficult, I am just copying stuff from other places and pasting it with the applicable changes.

With regard to my account, as I mentioned above I had an account but the WMF saw fit to make it useless when they did the standardization so that another account that did about 20 edits and was created a month prior to mine 8 years ago on another project would get the global name and the credit for the edits I did. Initially I was extremely pissed and stopped editing for several months but after a while I viewed the standardization project is an initiative that will improve the projects in the long term. As such I grew to accept the problem as expected collateral damage and an inconvenience and created a new account. I do not feel I need to disclose my old one due to this problem the WMF created with their suboptimal plan so you have a couple choices. You can view the improvements I have made to the project on their merits and AGF or you can accuse me of being a sock and block me. I suspect a lot of other users in the US use Firefox, Windows 10 and Verizon Fios so I should match several past blocked editors and it would be easy to justify a match. The latter of course would not be preferred nor would it benefit the project IMO since I have done nothing but positive contributions. Catnip the Elder (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I implied even in the most remote fashion that I thought you might be a sock. I have no reason to do anything other than accept the global user merge event as a perfectly reasonable explanation. My point is that, deprived of any knowledge of your previous experience, lacking testcases, discussion, or explanation, I'm disinclined to take a chance on editing the template.

I assume good faith. I don't assume testing or consensus without seeing it for myself.

you can ... block me - no I can't. I'm a template editor not an admin. As such I'd risk losing the privilege. Would you risk it on a user who has apparently only been here a week?

Sorry your edits have been credited to somebody else. There seems to be mention of manual adjustment at mw:SUL finalisation. I hope you can be reunited with your former self's contributions. Bazj (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: Thank you for the AGF and the consideration. I apologize if I was a bit defensive but some people like to make their bones yelling sock and I saw you do a lot of SPI work so I apologize for making that assumption. Catnip the Elder (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: As you can see, not everyone Assumes good faith like you do. Which I expected to happen as you could see from my comments. So many people are blocked, if you don't have an existing known account then its hard to not be accused of someone else, which would explain the drops in editors and the problems with retention on this site. Not to mention the backlogs and large numbers of edits that need to be done. Even positive contributions are scrutinized by people looking for a reason to justifying blocking a positive contributor, rather than assuming good faith. Catnip the Elder (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper Eternal: Thanks for the notice. Feel free to delete any contributions that are not wanted. Catnip the Elder (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]