As promised, I made this block only after consulting with several other admins and SPI clerks. As the evidence compiled through this process is fairly lengthy and cannot be easily shared on-wiki, I have marked this block as "appeal only to ArbCom", and will be notifying the Committee forthwith. It is my understanding that, in doing so, the block becomes immediately subject to sua sponte review by the Committee, even if you do not appeal. (I will stress, lest this be misrepresented elsewhere, that no part of the evidence being sent to ArbCom concerns off-wiki identitites.) Furthermore, any admin or SPI clerk wishing to see the compiled evidence is welcome to reach out to me off-wiki. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)20:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, I was going to appeal on-wiki to show everyone the comparisons I think were made, and which I feel are unjustified to make this block. While evidence you sent to ArbCom may not concern off-wiki identitites, I have repeatedly been compared to one off-wiki identity,[1] and this is why you were called on.[2] After what was said in the Daner's Creek SPI[3] and at ANI,[4] I see no reason to doubt that the evidence you were sent is comparing me to the editor who was at the heart of the discussions. Because Johnuniq and Bradv were the admins to offer me advice related to this on Bradv's talk page, I have sent them some of the "evidence" I think was used against me. It is the appeal I was going to post on-wiki. I will not email any other editor, so you don't have to revoke my email access, but I know that you or another will do what you want no matter my say.
Tamzin, I went through what counts as essentially four SPIs[5][6][7][8] in a very short span. So I do not find this block to be fair or to be based on evidence beyond scrutiny. You responded in this way after the SPI found an unrelated finding that even said it's very unlikely I'm related to Daner's Creek[9] and in this way[10] even after all the findings. So that solidified for me that you were going to block me no matter what the evidence. You block me based on circumstantial evidence that, as my analysis after using the Editor Interaction Analyser to analyse edits shows, can be circumstantial for any editor who edits some of the same articles that another did and when some topics at these articles come up repeatedly. Naturally, if I'm at those articles, I will also be a part of edits that relate to them and renewed discussions about them (if I choose to join them). For example, my analysis shows that, at the estrogen article, using "estrogen" or "estrogens" has hit the article multiple times. When, in January 2022, an editor wanted to use "estrogens" and made the assertion that using "estrogen" for the hormone group wasn't correct, I did a rvt and added resources showing that it is a general/collective/generic term for any of three similar hormones derived from cholesterol: estradiol, estrone, and estriol.[11][12] Is this "evidence" that was used against me because the editor I've been compared to was in a dispute about "estrogen" or "estrogens"? I realize you can't answer this. But when the editor whose edits I did a rvt on brought the topic to my talk page, I moved their post to the estrogen talk page for general comments. I didn't reply, but Crossroads did.[13] If I had replied, wouldn't this have been "evidence" against me? How can any new editor work in these areas without being accused of being that editor or a copycat person of her if we edit these pages and rvt things she would have rvt-ed or join discussions she would have joined? I have an identity of my own here. I edit a lot of pages that she didn't edit.
You are willing to give out second chances such as this,[14] but you blocked me, an editor you accused of being a sock all along, without mercy. I will appeal, but I don't expect much chance of getting fair consideration. I won't appeal because I don't expect much chance of getting fair consideration, but I will send an email to ArbCom letting them know what I think about this type of "behavioural block". GBFEE (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
