User talk:Catnip the Elder

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)