User talk:James Cantor
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
The article List of transgender clinics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No sign that the set of all transgender clinics is notable, though individual ones may be.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
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.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rab V (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have responded there, adding some examples of RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
- But are there only 4 in the world? a list article normal implies either that, or that there are four , all of which hacve articles for being individually notable. I suggest it would make immensely more sense as Transgender clinic, and I've moved it accordingly. It would still need great expansion. (If you do mean to establish separate articles on these, do it first, and then make the list) DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
neuromorphic computing
what are your thoughts on the role of neuromorphic computers in the study of psychology/neuroscience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
James Cantor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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)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.
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=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.</p> [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] indicated having “behavioural evidence” without actually disclosing any. The evidence from my behavior has long been very, <i>very</i> 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 <i>myself</i> from disputed pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=269470346&oldid=267136394], 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 <i>years</i> afterwards, again despite there being no requirement for me to do so.</p> 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 <i>remove</i> my long-standing declaration that I was staying away from these very pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=913367194&oldid=759201300] Moreover, if skirting the system were my goal, I’d have gotten a VPN a long time ago.</p> Finally, even if I were sockpuppeting, [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] remains quite over the top in their reaction. ArbCom topic banned (and <i>re-</i>topic banned AJ[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology&action=edit§ion=42], 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Sanctions] [[User:GeneralNotability|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 [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] being selected to receive it (regardless of whether GN might even know that reason). Fresh eyes would be appreciated. [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 23:53, 18 October 2021 (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=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.</p> [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] indicated having “behavioural evidence” without actually disclosing any. The evidence from my behavior has long been very, <i>very</i> 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 <i>myself</i> from disputed pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=269470346&oldid=267136394], 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 <i>years</i> afterwards, again despite there being no requirement for me to do so.</p> 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 <i>remove</i> my long-standing declaration that I was staying away from these very pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=913367194&oldid=759201300] Moreover, if skirting the system were my goal, I’d have gotten a VPN a long time ago.</p> Finally, even if I were sockpuppeting, [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] remains quite over the top in their reaction. ArbCom topic banned (and <i>re-</i>topic banned AJ[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology&action=edit§ion=42], 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Sanctions] [[User:GeneralNotability|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 [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] being selected to receive it (regardless of whether GN might even know that reason). Fresh eyes would be appreciated. [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 23:53, 18 October 2021 (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=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.</p> [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] indicated having “behavioural evidence” without actually disclosing any. The evidence from my behavior has long been very, <i>very</i> 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 <i>myself</i> from disputed pages[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=269470346&oldid=267136394], 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 <i>years</i> afterwards, again despite there being no requirement for me to do so.</p> 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 <i>remove</i> my long-standing declaration that I was staying away from these very pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJames_Cantor&type=revision&diff=913367194&oldid=759201300] Moreover, if skirting the system were my goal, I’d have gotten a VPN a long time ago.</p> Finally, even if I were sockpuppeting, [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] remains quite over the top in their reaction. ArbCom topic banned (and <i>re-</i>topic banned AJ[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology&action=edit§ion=42], 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.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Sanctions] [[User:GeneralNotability|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 [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] being selected to receive it (regardless of whether GN might even know that reason). Fresh eyes would be appreciated. [[User:James Cantor |— James Cantor]] ([[User talk:James Cantor|talk]]) 23:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Comment@Crossroads: What kind of evidence would demonstrate those things? I mean, what would amount to more than my say-so? — James Cantor (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)