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).
This accusation is in error and I challenge whether it was made in good faith. Banglange (aka Starburst9) and I are close in real life, but it's not me. This is all appears “based on a private tip,” which doesn’t sound like an uninvolved admin to me. GeneralNotability indicated having “behavioural evidence” without actually disclosing any. The evidence from my behavior has long been very, very different from this characterisation, as many other editors on my and other talkpages have noted: Despite not being required, I revealed my real life identity and edit under my real name to help others assess any COI. When needed, I banned myself from disputed pages[1], long before the ArbCom Sexology decision, and even though I could not get AJ to join me in that self-ban for the good of the pages. I retain my self-ban for years afterwards, again despite there being no requirement for me to do so. My behavior has long been going above and beyond, not sneaking behind. If one were planning on sockpuppeting, one would not have gone ahead eventually to remove my long-standing declaration that I was staying away from these very pages.[2] Moreover, if skirting the system were my goal, I’d have gotten a VPN a long time ago. Finally, even if I were sockpuppeting, GeneralNotability remains quite over the top in their reaction. ArbCom topic banned (and re-topic banned AJ[3], all while declining to put such restrictions on me (except the interaction ban). Yet, when Jokestress outright violated that topic ban, she received a warning, and when she violated it again, she received a 1-wk block.[4]GeneralNotability's indef out of nowhere is extreme by any standard. It is difficult to take this as a good faith report and not, for example, an “private tip” coming from AJ herself with a reason GeneralNotability being selected to receive it (regardless of whether GN might even know that reason). Fresh eyes would be appreciated. — James Cantor (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Per Crossroads below, this may not need to be an indefinite block, but per the other people in the discussion, it should not be lifted so quickly, and it might be better to do it through ArbCom rather than just some random admin reviewing CAT:RFU. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2021 (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.
Obviously I will not be reviewing this unblock, but I will respond to the concerns raised here:
The tip was the impetus for my investigation, but I still reviewed the behavior of the accounts involved before I touched the checkuser tool.
I will not identify the editor who notified me about this. I will say, however, that (as far as I am aware) they are not Jokestress and I do not have any reason to suspect an ulterior motive in their report.
Behavioral evidence, in short: generally editing in ways that seem to support you and your theories, rather positive editing on the article about you, apparent votestacking (both voted at Kleinplatz, so Starburst9/Banglange is in trouble for abuse of multiple accounts regardless of the outcome of this unblock request). If you are separate people, then I believe you are working together - and while we welcome editors collaborating, I believe this crosses the line into "deceptive" (with the other editor editing the article about you and editing a topic you are topic-banned from - of course, I cannot say for certain whether you asked them to make those edits with the evidence available to me).
I wasn't around for the Sexology case, nor was I involved in sanctioning Jokestress for topic ban violations. The only thing I am concerned about at this time is your actions. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least I think indeffing James Cantor for a first offense after having been a very-long-time good-faith editor could have been unnecessary. I also agree that sockpuppetry would be very out of character for him, as he explained above. If he has private evidence to show that he is not the individual behind the other two accounts and that there has been no meatpuppetry, it would be good for him to send that to WP:ARBCOM via email. This is per Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Other methods of appeal. Crossroads-talk-05:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate GeneralNotability’s comments: I have no reason to contest anything factual presented. Rather, I contest GeneralNotability’s interpretation of that information made absent the other relevant information. For example, I have participated (and initiated) more than 50 AfD’s over the last 10 years, but GeneralNotability concluded I am vote-stacking because Banglange/Starburst voted with me on 3 of them?...in 2017??? The report on article space that GeneralNotability linked says, if I am reading it correctly, that these edits were all made months apart? If these are the results of ‘inappropriate working together’, I am apparently very poor at exploiting it. I must also repeat what GeneralNotability did not address: This is what merited an indef without warning?— James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, but thought that if anyone could think of something, it would be you, since you know the real situation best. You can also think about what Flyer22 did when she faced a similar issue and see if that would be practical. She and her brother went on Skype with CheckUser Alison. Crossroads-talk-22:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Daniel Case: Could you elaborate on whom you mean by "the other people in the discussion"? I see only Crossroad's comment, and am wondering if you are mistaking the admin's comment as an independent view.— James Cantor (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no reason to doubt User:GeneralNotability's good faith or attention to the details. I have no personal need to review any evidence they have acquired. I am sure they feel they are acting as steward of the pedia. I would however like to understand how a user only blocked once ten years ago could acquire an indefinite site-wide block out of nowhere. This seems extreme to an uninvolved observer. BusterD (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went for an indef because this, to my eyes, looks like a longtime evasion of scrutiny (given that all of the accounts involved have been active in the same topic area for several years) - one-off evasion or a single breach of IBAN would be one thing, but to me this looks like a sustained pattern. There is CU evidence connecting these accounts, but it is not a CU block - if any administrator feels that I have erred or have acted excessively, they are welcome to overturn or reduce the block. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the brief explanation. Someone besides myself will surely ask. I was startled to see the block in real time and while I am convinced you would not have acted thus without due diligence, the actions appeared excessive in the moment. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To what end? I am entirely permitted to edit each of these pages freely (except for AJ’s BLP). I have no reason to escape any scrutiny. I appear to be getting treated as if I am under a TBAN rather than in Jokestress' IBAN...right down to GeneralNotability's Freudian slip between them.— James Cantor (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminine essence concept of transsexuality until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Sex Education and Therapy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
