User talk:Catnip the Elder

Catnip the Elder is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon.

November 2015

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.

Requesting unblock

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:

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]

Decline reason:

You were blocked with a confirmed Checkuser as a sockpuppet account of a banned user. That is a violation of policy. And, in addition, your behavior on this page after being blocked does not provide any confidence that your being allowed to edit would be a positive to the community. If you want to be a positive contributor to the project, take time off for awhile, consider that the community's reaction to you might be on you and not then, and then appeal your ban on your original account. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 10 December 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.

@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. Also, just for clarification, Reaper Eternal never mentioned it was a Checkuser block, they just blocked me indefinitely accusing me of another user without ANY proof. So I stand by my earlier comment that no, this is not a checkuser block. Catnip the Elder (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the unblock templates: Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. No, you cannot remove declined unblock requests on your talk page. Also yes, it was a Checkuser block, and Reaper Eternal explicitly said so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:My behavior was absolutely fine until Reaper decided to block me for the hell of it. You can deny my block and claim my behavior is bad if you want, but its just a bullshit excuse. All my edits were positive, there has been no proof provided that I am the editor Kumioko/Reguyla and I resent the insinuation that my block was my fault for making positive improvements to Wikipedia. The only thing that would happen if I was unblocked is I would do the same kinds of edits I did before I was blocked. I should not have to take time away from the project to think because you and a couple of other admins do not want outsiders editing your project. Now feel free to block talk page access of this account. If I want to edit again, I will do what you are accusing me of doing with no proof and create a new account. That is IF I decide to edit again which I likely will not since editors aren't appreciated or wanted here. Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please delete all my contributions since they are not wanted. Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Slakr: What's up with this edit? Maybe you can offer some proof that I am the editor you are accusing me of being? Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert these edits

Please delete all pages I create and revert all the edits I did. Also, since you do not want editors meddling here I recommend you lock the database to not allow any new accounts and tell people the site is closed for new editors. That would eliminate all vandalism, spammers, trollers, sockmasters and every other problem.

Also: @Reaper Eternal, The Bushranger, and Ohnoitsjamie:In fact, please delete all my contributions since they are not wanted. Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Please revert those edits we worked on. Apparently they are not wanted. Sorry for the inconvenience. Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazj: Please revert the edits I requested at Template talk:WikiProject Africa. Apparently they are not wanted. Sorry for the inconvenience. Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paine Ellsworth: Please revert the edits I requested at Template talk:WikiProject Central America. Apparently they are not wanted. Sorry for the inconvenience. Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You worked with Frietjes on that improvement, didn't you? Wasn't it what Frietjes wanted? Paine 04:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them, not the other way around. It was a change that was an improvement but improvements by me are not wanted so its better to delete it. Catnip the Elder (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting too old for this; however, I've always made decisions based upon what is right rather than who is right, so please forgive my refusal to do as you ask. And don't worry, because you'll probably be elected to ArbCom someday! (The squeaky wheel always gets the grease.) Happy holidays! Paine 04:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk revoked

I have removed your talkpage access since it is apparent that it will not be used for reasonable unblock requests. If you want to be unblocked, submit an appeal to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Africa articles with deprecated tags has been nominated for deletion

Category:Africa articles with deprecated tags has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]