User talk:Cathry

Thanks for your evidence-based edits, clean-ups and general busting of anti-social knowledge destroying cabals. :-) You deserve Admin rights. 120.17.210.246 (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. Cathry (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You must provide links to my "edit warring" edits. Ремарка для русскоговорящих - я так понимаю скайпочаты не дремлют? Cathry (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong on both counts. Btw the next block may be of indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Мне особенно нравится, что вы считаете наличие раздела про Украину в статье неонацизм "маргинальной теорией". Это вполне согласуется с тем, что ваши русскоязычные коллеги считают "мэйнстримом" называние Украины "приёмником" и правки статьи о лидере неонацистской организации его же соратниками. Cathry (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I am wrong. All you wrote at Noticeboard it is repeating of accusations in Russian wikipedia, where you were administrator and where conversation outside wikipedia among admins are common and well-known. I didn't see you in mentioned at Noticeboard articles, so it is strange you so quikly decided where "fringe theories" are. Cathry (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, please respond in English. I do not edit the Russian Wikipedia and have no "Russian-speaking colleagues there". I never discuss blocks off-wiki unless explicitly authorized by the community. I just happened to have your talk page on my watchlist. However, I understand that a conspiracy theory adept, you will have difficulties believing me. You are welcome to request an unblock as detailed above in the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I know pretty well, you know Russian, as you was admin at Russian wikipedia. It is interesting you "happened to have my talk page on your watchlist", but there are no records you posted some at this talk page. What was the occasion? Cathry (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I do not remember why I added you on my watchlist. It was quite some time ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Eventually, I realized, what kind of occasion it was. You acted as a radical nationalist Right Sector supporter here, when I tried to add statement from its website. Now everything is clear. Cathry (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

And here you confessed that you watch my edits in Russian wikipedia. Cathry (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

So this is your sincere personally formed opinion that I do edit-warring and "adding fringe theories and original research all over the place". As far as I understant "edit warring" in my case is any first and single revert of my opponents edit. But what and where "fringe theories and original research"? Cathry (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

For a starter. --Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

it is impossible to understand what do you mean. Cathry (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Oh, you're Russian? Wish I hadn't mentioned Zefr/Jytdog's Anglo-American prejudices now! They'll be more paranoid. Your account was the victim of an admin cabal bullying and gang attack. I respect your principled and evidence-based edits and consensus based undos on EGCG and RA page. Don't let the Ministry of Truth lying thugs get you down. I cannot believe they even claimed the EGCG vs GTE section I created on Talk:RA about them, was *their* attempt to resolve dispute with you! Well nothing should have surprised me about Wikipedia's BS by now. 120.17.210.246 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cathry (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't agree that my recent edits were edit-warring, as they were single reverts of deletions. Also, I don't agree with Ymblanter conclusion at noticeboard about "fringe theories and original research". Cathry (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Ymblanter's block was correct. I am extending the block to 2 weeks as a result of the personal attacks you have made as 120.17.210.246 (talk · contribs) whilst blocked. Further misconduct is likely to result in the block being further lengthened, or potentially made indefinite. WJBscribe (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2017 (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.

I only interacted with Cathry on EGCG and Rheumatoid Arthritis pages, which she was apparently reported for, and I *fully* support her version of what happened with the EGCG entries on RA page. She has been lied about and deserves to be unblocked. This was a gang hit on her and just bullying by cabal. 120.17.210.246 (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Zefr needs his rights removed. This block for adding EGCG content back to the RA page (that had been removed without consensus or explanation), is just so incredibly wrong. I know, because it was Cathry's undo of MY edit that they'd deleted and it never was 3RR or anything remotely like it. They just didn't like it. It wasn't "fringe theory". It was all entirely and solidly WP:MEDRS backed. Basically, fuck Wikipedia. Such a shithole waste of time full of drama-junky troll admins. Fuck off and get a life admins, so people can contribute a line of two of quality sourced content, without spending a week arguing senselessly with bureaucratic arsehats. 120.17.210.246 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I don't agree that my recent edits were edit-warring, as they were single reverts of deletions. Also, I don't agree with Ymblanter conclusion at noticeboard about "fringe theories and original research" Also, it is extremely outrageous to claim I am acting with ip "120..." My ip located in thousand of kilometres from this ip location, it can be simply checked. Cathry (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is essentially a repost of your previous unblock appeal, which has already been declined. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:20, 2 October 2017 (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.

Yunshui, It is not essentially repost of my appeal. In addition to the false charges of the first bloc, I received ridiculous claim of being one-time in Ukraine and Australia. Cathry (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are appealing the block placed by Ymblanter. You have previously appealed this block using literally the exact same text, and your appeal was declined. The appeal against the extension is secondary, and I am disregarding it, since even if the block were reduced to its original length, you would still be blocked. If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to address the original reasons for the block. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I'm already tired of fighting your bureaucracy. It is obvious that the second appeal and the first different, as I mentioned false claim about ip in the second one. And it is obvious why it is important to remove second bloc from journal first of all. Anyway, paid participants can jump - I have no desire to edit here anymore. No one interferes in their whitewashing and destroying of content. Cathry (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry you got block extended because of me. I don't know if you're familiar with our Australianism for this: Kangaroo Court. I'm going to hazard a guess that you said something to upset Russia and got stalked, well before this EGCG/RA thing ever started. It is rather absurd that admins think you're tunnelling out of a mobile phone. Have they even seen Australia's mobile rates? What VPN would do that?? But obviously facts and collective punishment mean nothing to them. Still Yunshui, you may want to reevaluate what's going here, including the lie User:Zefr made about this [[1]] being created by him. I created that to resolve my disagreement with Jytdog and Zefr tagteam reverting all my edits (e.g. here [2]). If I had the time, I'd fire up some stylometry analysis tools to check whether THOSE two are a single account. Which you should do on Cathry's too BTW and no doubt find she's clear. I've got no idea about her other history (haven't looked), but her delete reversion of the EGCG content on RA page was well founded. Zefr's delete here [[3]] clearly ignored the active talk topic that had been created to deal with him and Jytdog's recalcitrance shown on the main EGCG page. The text and content added to RA page was also different to EGCG page. The systematic reviews cited are clearly about EGCG (and say so in their titles), not just about GTEs (although it is a GTE as well anyway). The questions on that talk page are still unanswered, which was of course their entire intent behind seeking a block. In summary, Zefr's edit came AFTER and ignored the EGCG vs GTE talk section I created to deal with him/Jytdog (but partcularly Zefr's multiple reversions without comment), while Zefr claims he created it against Cathry and he said so (lied) in evidence to get Cathry blocked - deliberately misleading those on Admin Noticeboard! Also, I'd be pretty surprised that anyone thinks an Aussie (of many generations) sounds like a Ukrainian. Maybe her English is good, but completely different accent. 120.17.83.90 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually in Russian wikipedia was similar issue - "pesticides and gmo are perfect by definition, nobody can say anything cautious about them". And articles about these topics there are run by some admin. Also, it is known that Russian wikipedia admins communicate through skype conferences. Logs of this conference were revealed with such statements as "Fuck the rules, no one reads them, we were blocking, we are blocking and we will block" When some editor argues with admininstrator, administrator can simply complain to another, and another go and block him. It is known Ymblanter was once admin in Russian wiki and was friend of those who participate in this conference. Ymblanter claims his decision was sincere and not based on someone's opinion, but he can't provide arguments why he decide I defend "fringe theories" and why first and single reverts were confirmed as edit-warring Cathry (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree about Kangaroo Court Cathry (talk) 10:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's funny, my edits were often reverted with an explanation "poor English". It was not long ago, maybe in summer last time. And now I confused with native English speaker! This inspires optimism anyway :)Cathry (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your English is really fine. Even without the Skype logs, the level of collusion and §corruption is clear. Wikipedia's broken. 120.17.218.156 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support here and on other pages. But I'm afraid it's hopeless. Too many editors on one side, and too little on the other. And yes, the rules are treated like a floorcloth Cathry (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ymblanter was admin at Russian wikipedia as Yaroslav Blanter. Talk page there Cathry (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I see you support me at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, issues with Russian-Ukrainian relations in Russian wikipedia are rather complex. I don't thik Ymblanter has pro-Russian bias. I had anti-far-right position there (anti-Ukrainian nationalist, but also anti-Russian nationalist, and so on). Cathry (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije, I see you blocked some ip range with the reason "block evasion". it is unclear what block do you mean. User:Zefr put his opponent to SPI before he complain to you. He got the answer that user is different from me. So there is no blocks for 120.17.... to evade Cathry (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Site banned

Per the discussion at ANI, found here, you are hereby indefinitely banned from editing the English Wikipedia. You may file an appeal in 6 months. If you are caught evading your ban, the appeal timer will reset.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Due to your continued disruption on this talk page, your talk page privileges have now been revoked. If you wish to appeal in 6 months, you will need to post a request at WP:UTRS to have your talk page rights restored. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)