Jump to content

User talk:Catnip the Elder

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Catnip the Elder (talk | contribs) at 00:16, 10 December 2015 (→Requesting unblock: add ping to Ohnoitsjamie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Catnip the Elder, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

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]
Yet it seems you'd rather be blocked than reveal your usurped former account's name. The evidence is pointing against you. Bazj (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is no evidence other than an admin accusing me of being another with no proof other than I did some edits that appear similar to edits that user might do. To be frank, some of the stuff I did (like the wrapper template trick) was a copy of what that user did, so the assumption of similarity in editing is fair. But its still not proof I am them. Regardless I stand by my edits. I would also add that regardless of what else Kumioko did, they also created hundreds of articles, did hundreds of thousands of edits and did a lot of good for this project. So being accused of being them, even thought they lost their temper, isn't such an insult. Just saying! Catnip the Elder (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

@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]

@Reaper Eternal: I also wanted to clarify one thing. This account was not created to violate Wikipedia policy as your statement says, this account was created to contribute to building an encyclopedia. So if that is not what you are here for, then perhaps you should be evaluating what this project is all about to you and if you should be participating. I have done positive edits, created no disruption or drama, I have not voted in discussions, performed vandalism or left spam. Every edit was positive and was a benefit to the project and I was interacting positively with a number of users on several different pages without incident. So your claims that my edits are violating some policy are fictitious and baseless hyperbole. Catnip the Elder (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: I just read your userpage. I wished I had done that earlier and I must admit I got a bit of a chuckle. For someone who criticizes the "banning culture" you seem to have embraced it with full support and without hesitation for my account. Catnip the Elder (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wasn't going to do this but after consulting some friends offline I decided to give it a go. I have only done positive contributions, I have not edit warred, created a disruption or drama and every edit I have done was an improvement. I don't really care who you say or think I am, I am trying to improve the project and baseless blocks with unfounded accusations are not a way benefit the project. I explained why I know more than I should, so you can blame it on the globalization of the accounts by the WMF. They made my old account useless by adding ~ to the middle of it and gave my account to another user. So now after several months I decide to edit again and I am accused of being another blocked editor by an admin who claims they are opposed to all the with hunts of blocked/banned editors. So I am requesting unblock, knowing its going to get denied because unblock requests are almost never approved. Catnip the Elder (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Maybe try again when you are willing to answer direct questions instead of dancing around them. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:05, 25 November 2015 (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.

@Ohnoitsjamie: Maybe try asking a direct question for me to answer and I will consider answering it. Catnip the Elder (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a better suggestion, if you cannot prove I have done something wrong, other than an unproven and unjustified action by a checkuser acting on their own volition without authorization and no SPI or checkuser request, then I suggest unblocking my account would be the right thing to do. The last I looked, the checkuser right isn't supposed to be used for random fishing expeditions. Catnip the Elder (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I ever glad I came back

@Reaper Eternal: Am I ever glad I came back. First the WMF usurps my account and forces me to create a new one, giving my established account to a user from another wiki that only had it for a month more than me and did about 20 edits. Now I am being accused of being another user with no proof. You guys are really doing a great job of showing me why people don't edit. If the only way to edit is with an established account without harassment and accusations, then no wonder why so few people are joining Wikipedia as editors and staying. Accusations with no proof, insults and no reasonable way to appeal the accusation. Good luck and if I want to edit again, I won't. You had no SPI or reason to use the Checkuser tools (assuming that's what you did), you were just fishing which isn't allowed. I did nothing but positive edits and just because the WMF broke my old account and I created a new one I am accused of being a sock of another user? Give me a break! What a joke!Catnip the Elder (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser  Confirmed as Kumioko (talk · contribs) and his socks. Also, you're behaviorally very obvious. Stop lying to my face and stop acting like I'm so stupid as to believe them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: What does it matter what I say. If I say I am not them you say I am lying and keep me blocked. If I say I am them then I still remain blocked so either way you have no intention of unblocking this account just like you have no intention of proving it. You can go ahead and claim that I am assuming you are stupid but to the contrary what you are doing is clever. Block someone based on secret evidence and then make it appear like your feelings are hurt when I respond spouting nonsense about my behavior. My behavior is that of human nature when someone who was blocked for no reason, based on no evidence who did nothing but beneficial improvements. How should someone who was blocked unfairly after editing beneficially act? State thank you Sir may I have another? Why was there even a need for a Checkuser check? There wasn't! and the checkuser tool is not supposed to be used for personal fishing expeditions. I was asked about my account above and I answered it. Here is what policy says about the use of the checkuser tool...which you violated!:
I was not doing vandalism, I was not creating a disruption, I was not performing bad faith editing, so the only thing you have to accuse me of is that I am another user, based on secret evidence. Next, since we haven't interacted I wonder what the point of this witch hunt is. My guess is that its a combination of option 1 or 2, to Exert social control and to apply pressure to an editor although I admit I do not know why. So frankly I don't care if I hurt your feelings. You don't care that you blocked me for editing positively and interacting positively with other users. You don't care that you violated the Checkuser policy by using it on me when there was no reason to do so. Maybe if you and your peers stop accusing every new account with some skill in editing as being a sock of a blocked or banned editor then this site wouldn't have the attrition problems it has. No one wants to edit this site for long because decisions like this by people like you show that policy on this site does not apply to your "class" of contributor. Catnip the Elder (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: So I guess you have nothing to say about what I said above? Please show me what edits I was doing that were disruptive, trolling, vandalism or non beneficial. Please show me where I interacted with anyone that was a disruption or negative in any way. Please show me some proof that you had a valid reason to even use the Checkuser tool at all. Catnip the Elder (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Try #2 - sock puppetry, #3 - especially the "potential disruption" considering the massive amount of community time you've wasted, and #4 - concerns of bad-faith editing of the checkuser policy, all of which are applicable here. Especially #2. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: Of course you claim #2 using "secret" evidence and everyone could be accused of "potential disruption" so that's hardly convincing. Of course you don't need to be convincing on Wikipedia, only the accused like me need to be convincing and every policy and assumption for the admins like you is to ensure that we cannot prove anything because there is always an argument or alternate policy that can be used to argue against anything we accused say.
I would also point out a couple things. If I were that person you accuse me of being then blocking this account isn't going to stop them from editing. They will merely create another, and another, and another. I would also point out that your accusation of the editor you accuse me of being isn't completely accurate. From what I can see that user has been berated, insulted and punished by a small group of individuals on this site because of their opinions that admins are just editors and editors themselves should be treated fairly and the admins like you desiring not to enforce policy violations on your fellow admins. A couple in the community continuously submitted ban requests until one stuck, the community decision last august was for them to be unblocked but a couple were allowed to change that outcome because they didn't agree with it. Then Worm That Turned apparently unblocked them with a three strikes agreement but after one strike a couple in the community decided to override that and block them again. So you accuse me of the potential for disruption but you aren't doing anything about the ones doing the disruption. In fact, from what I can see, ever edit that editor has done, with the exception of a few easily ignored talk page messages and Email messages to you among others, are positive. So perhaps neither I nor they are the problem here and you just don't have the morale courage to do anything about it.
In fact I suspect you don't really have any proof at all and its just easy to accuse me of being that editor so you can justify continuing the vendetta against them for leaving a few emails and messages for you. Because it appears that if I were them, then my edits would have been reverted but they haven't been. So that indicates to me that there is no "proof" I am them other than your word based on false assumptions or the inappropriate use of the checkuser tool 'against policy. Maybe if you and a few others would stop creating disruptions to accuse people of and AGF towards other editors instead of using excuses to block them, that editor and others including myself would be editing and improving the project rather than typing responses to bullshit cowardly blocks from admins who don't contribute anything other than their sense of wisdom, threats and use of force.
Now please, unblock me so that I can get back to improving Wikipedia since you clearly have no desire to improve it other than blocking people who do. Because comments like this one stating you are fed up with the Banning culture showing that you're obviously just using to try to bullshit people is obviously not true given your actions towards me and that Kumioko editor you referred too that you obviously hate so much. Catnip the Elder (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: Since you cannot or will not provide proof of your accusations; since you are clearly involved and seem to have a deep hatred of that Kumioko user you are accusing me of being and since I have done only positive contributions to Wikipedia and because you used the Checkuser tool without a reason to do so in violation of policy will you please unblock my account so that I can continue improving Wikipedia? Catnip the Elder (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper Eternal: Please provide proof, aside for the "Secret evidence" you claim that I am the person you accuse me of being or unblock my account so that I can continue to improve Wikipedia. There was absolutely no reason to block me, I have done nothing wrong and I have done nothing but positive contributions. If you are unwilling or incapable of providing evidence, then this block should not continue! Especially given that you supposedly have a problem with the sock witch hunts on this project according to your user page. Or was that just bullshit! Catnip the Elder (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

My account was blocked by Reaper Eternal as a sock. If I was the editor he accuses me of being he would have restricted me from editing my talk page at all and someone would have reverted my edits which seem to be common practice for that editor. Every edit I have done has been a positive benefit to this project and I was actively collaborating with multiple editors on improvements. There was no reason to block this account so I am requesting it be unblocked so that I can continue to improve Wikipedia. Catnip the Elder (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=My account was blocked by Reaper Eternal as a sock. '''If''' I was the editor he accuses me of being he would have restricted me from editing my talk page at all and someone would have reverted my edits which seem to be common practice for that editor. Every edit I have done has been a positive benefit to this project and I was actively collaborating with multiple editors on improvements. There was no reason to block this account so I am requesting it be unblocked so that I can continue to improve Wikipedia. [[User:Catnip the Elder|Catnip the Elder]] ([[User talk:Catnip the Elder#top|talk]]) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=My account was blocked by Reaper Eternal as a sock. '''If''' I was the editor he accuses me of being he would have restricted me from editing my talk page at all and someone would have reverted my edits which seem to be common practice for that editor. Every edit I have done has been a positive benefit to this project and I was actively collaborating with multiple editors on improvements. There was no reason to block this account so I am requesting it be unblocked so that I can continue to improve Wikipedia. [[User:Catnip the Elder|Catnip the Elder]] ([[User talk:Catnip the Elder#top|talk]]) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=My account was blocked by Reaper Eternal as a sock. '''If''' I was the editor he accuses me of being he would have restricted me from editing my talk page at all and someone would have reverted my edits which seem to be common practice for that editor. Every edit I have done has been a positive benefit to this project and I was actively collaborating with multiple editors on improvements. There was no reason to block this account so I am requesting it be unblocked so that I can continue to improve Wikipedia. [[User:Catnip the Elder|Catnip the Elder]] ([[User talk:Catnip the Elder#top|talk]]) 16:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
@Reaper Eternal: Is this a Checkuser block? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 17:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I don't know why it would be, there was never an SPI requested nor was there any reason at all for them to even do a checkuser. So if they did do a Checkuser, it was against the policies that have been established for use of the Checkuser tool. Catnip the Elder (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they had reasonable and justifiable suspicion that you are Kumioko, they also were well within their rights to run a CU, with or without an SPI. Did the Orangemoody incident teach you nothing? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 18:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if there was any indication I was a paid editor, operating a large stable of accounts, was doing anything remotely disruptive, was trolling, performing vandalism, etc. which I was not. I merely had a higher level of knowledge than was expected for a newcomer and since I edit from Verizon and live in the DC metro area with about 12 million+ other people that's evidence enough of the "Secret evidence of a checkuser nature" justification. I should mention also that Kirill Lokshin, Keilana, MzMcbride, CarolMooreDC and a lot of other active folks also live in this area and I presume some of them also use Verizon FIOS (its very popular and available in this area). So maybe Kumioko/Reguyla/etc. is them as well? I already explained the circumstances, the WMF usurped my account and I got pissed and didn't edit for several months. When I came back I created a new account because the old one was no longer available to me. There really is nothing else I feel like I need to say to justify it. When I start talking about admin abuse, commenting negatively on the Arbs talk pages, etc. then feel free to accuse me of being Reguyla. Meanwhile I would like to do some of the other positive stuff that Kumioko/Reguyla would be doing like tagging articles, creating articles, reverting vandalism, working on templates, etc. You know, the positive stuff they did for about 10 years that no one cares about. :-) Catnip the Elder (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of declined unblocks You don't get to delete declined unblock requests on active blocks; I've restored the previous declined request, as well as the comment indicating that you are indeed checkuser confirmed as Kumioko. I'm not sure why your talk page access hasn't been removed, but I'll leave that decision to the next administrator who has the patience to wade through your Wikilawyering. Note: if you do remove previous declined unblock requests again, I'll remove the talk page access myself. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohnoitsjamie: Actually this is my talk page so I can remove it just like anyone can remove discussion sections from their talk pages. Normally I would have archived them but I can't create an archive page while blocked because you guys want to make wild unfounded accusations that I am another user without any proof other than "Secret evidence" and "trust me I am an admin" arguments. Its really not that big of a deal though, I don't have any faith that anyone is going to think for themselves and lift this block. I also do not have the same blind loyalty to the Checkuser tool as you do apparently. Catnip the Elder (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Catnip_the_Elder&oldid=694554472"