User talk:Catbag
Uhh... nycto is now dark tower, you can fix the ortography errors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Tower_%28FPS_Game%29
please again!
Special Note
[edit]Catbag do you even know what Wikipedia IS? 74.230.152.195 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you are interested in this project... --Michkalas 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism block
[edit]
Unblock/Block Reduction Request
[edit]
Catbag (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm afraid I don't really see how that was vandalism. I wasn't even warned about it at all, and suddenly I'm blocked for a week? I knew I shouldn't have uploaded images. Anyhow, I can see from Fram's point of view why my actions may appear to be vandalism, however I think 1 week is a bit harsh considering that I've got a pretty good track record and I didn't even know that I was vandalizing anything to begin with.
Decline reason:
Per below. – Steel 17:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
To the admin who reviews this block: please note that user Catbag is most probably the same as the indef blocked vandal annex sockpuppeteer User:Syphonbyte. Catbag made his first edit the day Syphonbyte was indef blocked (August 30, 2006), edits in similar patterns (edit summaries, types of vandalism, talk page), has a number of nonsense subpages which are copies of deleted pages Syphonbyte actively worked on, and has the same method of doing some good edits to be able to protest any claim that he is a vandal-only account. My suggestion would be that if you agree with this, you would indefblock Catbag as a sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. If not, feel free to do with the block as you see fit. Fram 11:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- I find it interesting in looking over your block history that almost all of your prior blocks of vandals were 24 hours, or in some cases where it was blatant and repetitive vandalism, a longer time. Yet for some reason, you blocked me for 1 week despite the fact that I never recieved any warning that what I was doing was wrong, the fact that I've never committed any sort of vandalism, and the fact that this "false information" I inserted is not actually provably false in the first place. What makes me so special? I mean, you could've just warned me and I would've stopped immediately. Now I'll probably be banned from Wikipedia forever. I'm still assuming good faith on your part, but since you've jumped right in labeling me as a sockpuppet and vandal, it's getting difficult. Catbag 17:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite Block?
[edit]Catbag (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't understand why I am now indefinitely blocked. At first I was blocked for a week for uploading an image, which is apparently "vandalism" even though I wasn't warned about it at all. Now I've been blocked indefinitely because a user claims that I am some person with whom he had a dispute almost a year ago? There is absolutely no evidence that I am a sockpuppet of User:Syphonbyte, and frankly I'm appalled at User:Fram's lack of good faith. I've made nothing but positive contributions to the project (or tried my best to, at least), and I think that ought to count for something. I don't expect an instant unblocking or anything, but surely a reduction would make sense? I apologize for the actions I took that were deemed vandalism, and indeed I should've known in the first place that uploading any images would get me in trouble. I just think it's a bit extreme to indef block an editor who has done absolutely nothing wrong in the past because they made a simple and innocuous mistake, and I really don't see any evidence that would point to me being a sockpuppet, of all things, and I think User:Fram ought to actually provide some.
Decline reason:
Fram convinced me. You may claim not to be a sockpuppet but you sure do quack like one. Mangojuicetalk 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
- Well, we have the fact that your account was created the same day Syphonbyte was indef blocked, that the first two AfD's you participated in was one I started and one where your comment came right after mine (twice you disagreed with me, what a surprise), that Syphonbyte had a userbox which said that "this user tried to murder catbag", that you created the subpages /Gotem and /Eiland with content created partly by Syphonbyte and subsequently deleted as nonsense, that you also edited Gotem, the user page of The Raven, ... ? You just happen to have the same interest in utter nonsense, to use the same ridiculous edit summaries, and to know the same editors. Right... Furthermore, you did more than "uploading an image". You uploaded an image with the only intent to vandalize (since you knew from which article it came, as you have edited it before), you inserted other incorrect info in the article, you warned a user who reverted your vandalism (which is harassment), ... So, I initially blocked you for malicious long term vandalism (April 26 to May 10), harassment, meatpuppeting with the Raven and anonymous users, and the feeling that something was fishy about your account. I gave you one week as the chance that you would return seemed large and a 24 hour block seemed pointless in your case. On further investigation, it became clear to me that you were a sockpuppet of a previously indef banned user, but to make sure that my previous history didn't make me too subjective, I let another random admin make the decision. As he or she agreed, I suppose that it was pretty clear after all. So this will be my last reply to you, as you are a waste of my time. Fram 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- So basically, I edit a few articles that some editors you don't like also edit (mainly because I go to that particular school and Gotem is popular there). I admittedly did something stupid with that image as a joke, but I don't think one mistake is grounds for banning me forever.
- I don't believe that I am "meatpuppeting" with the Raven and anonymous users. There are often multiple users who will edit an article; this does not make them meatpuppets. I have no control over what these anonymous IPs do, and if you look at the edit history it's clear that many different IPs have inserted and removed all sorts of nonsense over time.
- You still have provided no concrete evidence that I am User:Syphonbyte, and there is no reason to indef block me if you do not (which you can't, because I am not that user.) All you have is that I created my account around the same time that the user was banned, which isn't that suprising considering that people get banned all the time here. I admit that it probably seems suspicious, however unlike this "indef blocked vandal annex sockpuppeteer," I haven't gone around ruining the encyclopedia. It's quite clear that the project benefits more from me being here than from me being banned, I think. I'm sorry that you feel that I'm a waste of your time, however you are the one who initially got into all this and banned me along with another editor (and a random anonymous IP for some odd reason.) Catbag 18:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)