Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Krakkos (talk) at 18:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Krakkos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive402#User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Warned user(s))
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Andrew Lancaster reported by User:Krakkos (Result: Both warned)
• User talk:EdJohnston#Hounding, continued bullying and severe personal attacks by Andrew Lancaster

Statement by Krakkos

Timeline: User talk:Krakkos#Timeline of edit warring, hounding, personal attacks, threats, casting of aspersions and bullying of Krakkos by Andrew Lancaster

Andrew Lancaster and i have been warned several times against

As a result of the continued personal attacks, i post a complaint at the talk page of EdJohnston.[27] EdJohnston gives Andrew Lancaster another warning for his blockable personal attack, and instructs him to make a revised post without personal attacks.[28] Andrew Lancaster rather makes a

EdJohnston long ago considered Andrew Lancaster's personal attacks blockable,[34] and has recommended me to file a complaint elsewhere.[35] The previous failure of such complaints to deal with the problem, has however convinced me that only an Arbcom ruling can effectively deal with the situation. Andrew Lancaster has floods talk pages continuously with new sections containing walls of text,[36][37] thereby making discussions confusing and unappealing.[38][39] He also casts negative aspersions against me, which may influence inexperienced editors.[40]. In a controlled environment with experienced editors such as Arbcom, this can be prevented. A member of Arbcom has privately encouraged me to contact this committee.

The poisonous atmosphere has discouraged or driven away productive editors from editing the subject area,[41][42] which is in the process of degenerating into a

Update 1: Despite repeated warnings (as described above) and the filings of this case request, the personal attacks are still ongoing. He's still defending these attacks as "colorful terminology",[44] says that he will "now start tracking" me,[45] and calls me a "partisan"[46] who has "systematic problems".[47] Krakkos (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To Robert McClenon

This case has previously been aired several times before multiple admins, who because of its convoluted nature have refused to become involved.[48][49][50] As a result, the situation has only gotten worse. The reason I'm seeking a solution here rather than at

My main concern is that more people than me need to look at this case and try to confirm or deny what is going on. A cross check should be done of the claims, context, diffs etc made by Krakkos above and elsewhere. (At first sight, the diffs posted in the first version of the claim above are quite misleading for example, sometimes in subtle but critical ways. See analysis of the post's references on my talk page)

Nutshell. This is "forum shopping" that has been going since January, aimed at effective article "ownership" (that is effectively what is demanded). It can be looked at in a short-term way, or as a bigger long-term problem. It potentially affects many articles which Krakkos treats as closely related (edits, actions, splits, copy-pastes). Comparing us, I am the bigger and longer-term "content adder" to almost all of those articles.

In the short term, Krakkos wants to eliminate me now because we are reaching turning points on a 2nd article wrt systematic POV pushing. I have announced some RFCs and RSN posts in preparation and asked for feedback. Krakkos probably rightly believes this will lead to more 21st century sources on the article Goths, which Krakkos has largely been censoring out of the article. The talk page of Goths explains more.

Another reason for eliminating me is that I said I would now start tracking and acting upon any misrepresentations made in talk page posts or edsums, because such misrepresentations have become a major concern to me. As a start, I publicly analyzed the misrepresentations in the most recent "edit war" complaint Krakkos made against me, here. The misrepresentations in that edit war complaint shocked me. (And then I apologized for my initial colorful review of the situation. [61].)

Rejecting this case would seem to be one valid short-term solution. I think consensus-based, policy-based editing will probably keep progressing slowly, as it already did on Germanic peoples. But I am not sure what Krakkos will do on future cases (not just with me).

OTOH, I can see a case for looking at this more deeply here. Put simply, I see that Krakkos seems to have systematic problems when working with others. For example: habitually and deeply misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding other Wikipedians, policies, and sources; and habitually looking for ways to catch editors by surprise (merges, re-names, splits, faits accomplis, precedents). Some of the January actions on Germanic peoples are analysed here. Krakkos later suddenly stopped editing or posting on that talk page when the consensus and policy was inescapable, then moved to the overlapping article Goths, and called for a GA review there. (The article did NOT seem to be in any way prepared for such a review. Despite announcing that review, Krakkos started a fundamental rewriting. I have mainly worked on the talk page and made a few edits which I think would normally be considered non-controversial even during a dispute.)

Krakkos and I edit many of the same types of articles. Most of what I saw over the years were questionable category changes about strange "ethnicities" and articles for non-notable scholars who are clearly being cited by Krakkos somewhere. It keeps under the radar. My first realization that all was not well was this strange but minor discussion, which I now see as typical: defensive/dismissive to advice from fellow Wikipedians, no matter how obvious the problem.

Response to statement by User:Robert McClenon

Maybe a TLDR would appropriate: IMHO this case, in its intended form, is not appropriate. Krakkos is simply in a POV-pushing content dispute. The editing community tends to work these out better than "the courts". Could be looked at: 1. Historically Krakkos WP actions are to a remarkable extent definable as a non-consensus systematic program - FYI aiming to portray all humanity in terms of 19th century style language-defined ethnic families. That is controversial. 2. I fear Krakkos has competence issues in understanding sources, policies and other editors, and judging how to react to them. 3. Krakkos seems to systematically escalate and exacerbate content disagreements (as here). Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This statement isn't about whether the previous efforts to resolve the case have been tried and have failed. I know nothing about the issues that have led to this. However, based on very recent experience, I think that a lesson learned is that, if the ArbCom thinks that it needs to act because the community has failed or will fail to resolve the dispute, it should open a full case rather than act by motion. I advised the ArbCom to act by motion with respect to the Motorsports dispute between User:Mclarenfan17 and User:Tvx1. I was honestly mistaken, and fortunately the ArbCom opened a full case. Tvx1 has introduced evidence alleging a pattern of conduct by the other party that at least needs to be considered. This dispute may be similar. If there is a history of animosity between two users, ArbCom should accept and review evidence as to whether either or both of the users have acted against other editors also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In looking over the history of the disputes between these editors, it appears that this arbitration request is premature because

This [[62]] leads me to wonder about an IBAN. I am not sure if Andrew Lancaster's wall of text constitutes misrepresenting what a user has said (or even if it is pretending to be an RSN notice made by Krakkos, but it reads a lot like it might. Nor does Andrew Lancaster seem inclined to accept views that disagree with his own.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, yes, ANI is the best place for this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Request for

personal attacks

: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I have notified Andrew Lancaster using {{Arbcom notice}} on their talk page [63] to provide relevant links and a direct link to the case request. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for

personal attacks

: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Decline a couple of
  talk) 21:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline due to lack of prior
  WP:ANI before we can look into whether a case is necessary. – bradv🍁 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Decline per Beeblebrox and Bradv. Regards SoWhy 16:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Noticeboards are the place for this now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline at this time per others above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline per others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Arbitration appears to be unnecessary.
   ■ 11:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Initiated by Jytdog2 (talk) at 00:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Jytdog2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), former account

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Re-opening of case - last version I can find before it was archived to a redlink is here

Statement by Jytdog2

It has been a bit over a year since I resigned in the face of the case being accepted.

I still use Wikipedia, and keep finding articles that need improvement or have promotional content.

I would like to rejoin the editing community, and emailed Arbcom to ask about that. Arbcom said that the case would need to be re-opened, and said that if I wanted that, I could create an account and use it solely to open a case. (This brand new account was temporarily made "confirmed" so I could do so; brand new accounts can't open cases). So here we are.

To refresh: In the midst of a dispute with a new editor who was melting down, I went and found that person's phone number using information the person left in an edit note. In that note, the person referred to a conference where they had organized an exhibit; I had gone to the conference website to see what they were referring to. They had posted contact information there. When I called, my intention was not to argue, but rather to help them understand how WP works to avoid escalating drama. The call went badly (I allowed myself to argue), and the person was upset.

This was a serious error in judgement on my part. I should not have called them and I won't try to defend my decision, as it was dumb. That is something I will never do again, should I be allowed to rejoin the editing community. I do understand the harm done to that person and to the principle of user privacy and -- through a violation of that policy -- to the trust that people have, that their privacy will be protected here. I left the person an apology last year, and I again apologize to everyone.

I have not notified anyone of this re-opening nor listed any specific people as other parties. I am not sure if doing so is within the permissions given to me to open this case. I will be happy to do so or not. Just let me know. (I did make one other edit, namely to create a link at User:Jytdog2 to User:Jytdog)

• Three comments on the discussion thus far:
  • My work on COI issues has been raised a few times. The issue in the incident was not COI per se, but rather advocacy. Advocacy editing is when somebody shows up here, all full of passion and with no understanding of (and usually no interest in learning and following) the policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here. (COI is a subset of advocacy, where the behavior is driven by financial considerations, not just passion). Helping advocates of all kinds slow down and understand what we do here, is indeed something I have worked on a lot. Including when I took the extraordinary, stupid, and ultimately harmful step of calling this person (which I should not have done, and will not attempt anything like it, using any means outside of WP, if I am permitted to rejoin the WP community).
  • One of the comments below contains the statement "He did something malicious". "Malicious" is a fairly precise word, and its surface meaning has to do with a desire to cause harm or injury. That comment -- written as a statement of fact, not belief -- has been cited by four other people here. If the community agrees that I actually intended to cause harm then it should not allow me back, under any circumstances. Those five people have made it clear that they assume bad faith on my part; therefore as of now there is no foundation for dialogue between me and each of them.
  • Obviously there is lots of room for condemning what I did, and even banning me, outside of attributing my actions to malice. Jytdog2 (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Jytdog should be welcomed back, but should affirm that he/she will never contact other Wikipedians by phone, text messaging and so on (unless he/she is personally acquainted with them beforehand). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeat75

Jytdog has learned from their mistake. S/he was an invaluable contributor in many areas of WP and should be welcomed back.Smeat75 (talk) 01:13, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

Why was Jytdog directed here? The motion from 2018 seems clear enough. He's back so the case should be unsuspended. What happens from there will depend on many factors as all arbcom cases do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I would welcome Jytdog back but there should be a formal requirement that they never contact anyone off-wiki in relation to a matter at Wikipedia. Jytdog2 does not have email enabled and I think it should stay like that for at least six months. If wanted, after a certain period (six months?), Jytdog2 could ask at

What we have here is a veteran editor who had a serious miss step who has acknowledge this fact. This is what we are looking for in any editor. Kudos to them for coming back and wishing to re-engage with community under their old name....could have easily started a new identity and fly under the radar. Yes to a welcome back- Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap.--Moxy 🍁 03:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BD2412

My statement from the previous process stands; I would add to that only the observation that Jytdog's self-exile already matches or exceeds the likely penalty to be assessed in a situation like this. BD2412 T 03:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

Jytdog did not do something “dumb.” He did something malicious and, to the victim, most likely frightening. He harassed an individual off-wiki in a manner completely out of line with the principles and policies of Wikipedia. While article quality matters, Jytdog is a vigilante and causes more harm than good. He has some strengths as an editor but they are more than offset by his predictable, regular, meltdowns where he loses all sense of perspective and common sense, as illustrated by the circumstances surrounding each of his previous blocks. I suggest Arbcom decline to reopen the case until such time as Jytdog appears with a statements than demonstrates that he fully comprehends the seriousness of his behavior. At this point, he doesn’t get it. When he does, then he could again request the case be reopened. Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Arbcom said that the case would need to be re-opened, and said that if I wanted that, I could create an account and use it solely to open a case. Question for the Arbs: Did you folks really tell him to request a new case? That seems silly. If you've said the case needs to be re-opened, then ... just re-open it. What's with all the pointlessness of people making statements, and you folks going thru the meaningless formality of accepting a case you told him would be required, and that you're all going to accept? Just re-open the case. If people have evidence they want to provide, do it in evidence. Not in case request statements. If people think he should be unblocked, say so in the workshop. Not in case request statements. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I don't understand how you could possibly decide not to have a full case, considering that the last ArbCom specifically decided that a case was warranted. Unless this is an opportunity for the new ArbCom to over-rule the old ArbCom? I guess I hadn't thought of that, I forgot about the huge turnover and new blood ... OK, you're the ones making the big money, I guess we'll see how it goes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

Without actually having held the case, it's premature for anyone to comment on whether or not any hypothetical remedies would have been equivalent to the editor's voluntary retirement, or even determined to be necessary. Please unsuspend the previous case and proceed (or dispose of it by motion) so that the appropriate principles, findings, and remedies (if needed) can be determined. isaacl (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

I strongly urge Jytdog not be allowed to resume participation on Wikipedia. What they did was exceptionally bad. Using identifying information in someone's post to out them is an instant indef, but going 2 steps further to look up their contact info and call that editor is simply beyond the pale. Jytdog affirms to never do that again, but that's not good enough. The problem is that Jytdog views certain issues, like potentially promotional material, to be such a problem here that it must be stopped at all costs. The outing and personal contact are simply a sympton of that. I was so disturbed when this happened, and this appeal should be immediately shut down. A short look at Jytdog's block log will demonstrate a particular pattern. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will the arbs please let us know how many incidents regarding Jytdog and these types of issues have been discussed on the functionaries list? The community needs to know, in light of the many comments saying this was only a one time thing. Thryduulf alluded to several such incidents at the previous case request. This history is important, as it supports the claim that, in my opinion, Jytdog views OUTING as ok if it proves some type of COI. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I agree with Mr Ernie and Montanabw. Jytdog's conduct was so far outside what is acceptable that an indefinte ban was the only appropriate solution, especially when looked at in the light of their previous attitudes, behaviours and block log. Although I see contrition for what they did I see no evidence in the statement that they truly understand why it was wrong or any indication that they wont return to their more routine but still inappropriate manner of editing Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax and Pudeo: I need to read those old emails again as I don't remember their contents at the moment, but I wont get a chance to do that until most likely Monday or Tuesday. If a case is opened before then, I'll submit them as evidence (public or private as appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosebagbear

Strictly speaking there aren't any disputes over the facts in this specific case. The only dispute is to what action should be taken against Jytdog. So in that sense, I've no complaints if ARBCOM want to overrule their predecessor's requirement to have a case.

However, if a case would have included FOFs pertaining to earlier incidents (that Jytdog might not necessarily accept), then a full case would need to be had.

I could well imagine arbitrators wanting to consider a whole bunch of possibilities, so it might end up as quite a complicated motion set-up, but that's not a dealbreaker.

Finally, as to whether I think he should be unblocked? Hmmm. The whole thing was a big enough shock that it was capable of stopping Jytdog editing for a fair while, so they can control themselves to at least some degree. But as to whether his prior history suggests a major risk going forward (even if not quite of this severity), there is weight to that. Promotionalism and such is so common that it's not well suited to lesser sanctions (they can't really avoid it as an issue to avoid flashpoints). Perhaps not much use as a statement on this count, but whether a case or motion, I think I'll leave this to the better judgement of ARBCOM. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amorymeltzer

Agree with others above (e.g. Barkeep49) that this is unnecessary busywork: either open the case by motion and proceed from there, or pass a motion to deal with it and be done with it. More discussion isn't necessary: think of the clerks! Still, as public comments have been solicited as to the nature of the case, let me just say that given Jytdog's repeated misbehavior since 2015, I would expect the Evidence phase to be limited. Indeed, a number of folks agreed last time that a public evidence phase be largely nonexistent, since there was no real disagreement on the facts. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RexxS

This seems particularly pointless as – given the suspension of the last case – it's inconceivable that a case won't be opened. I expect to make a statement with diffs in evidence, but I'll note here that although Jytdog did a lot of good work in keeping woo out of the encyclopedia, he suffered from a blind-spot when it came to areas of CoI, where he was too often too zealous. If we want to allow an editor back who can do good work in one area, but shouldn't be let near another, we need to start thinking about how to craft conditions to achieve that with certainty. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc James

Was a good editor for many years. Made some serious mistakes. Admitted to them and took a year off as they knew a block was pending. I think everyone knows that they will be given no room for errors with respect to similar mistakes, and that this will last forever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ad Orientem

Support re-opening case or disposal by motion There are issues outstanding that need to be addressed. That said, I strongly encourage the committee to take note of Jytdog's contrition and self imposed sanction as a factor in mitigation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

Jytdog has learnt from their mistake and deserves another chance, I'm also sure Jytdog isn't silly enough to do this again so therefore IMHO there shouldn't be any restrictions. –Davey2010^Talk 19:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

No better words about this are likely to be written than what Montanabw has already written here. I agree with them 100% and also with Mr Ernie and Thryduulf. What others are calling "dumb" or "a mis-step", which Jytdog themselves described on their way out as "a very bad error in judgment", was so much more than that; at the time I called it "a serious invasion of privacy and a (Redacted) creepy thing to do to someone." (emphasis and more cursing in original) And this new account purporting to be Jytdog (has anyone made any effort to confirm?) still does not seem to realize that, no, it wasn't an "error in judgment" because they got mad at this person, it was an "error in judgment" because they picked up the (Redacted) phone in the first place.

I also wrote the following, which seems to need repeating here: "['Discussion is required'] does not mean that if you don't respond [to a discussion] then you'll have strangers on the internet looking up your personal information to contact your employer or your family, or, say, showing up at your home. And no, it's not a leap at all to think that someone who has gone to the trouble of looking up your info and thinks it's okay to call you uninvited won't also show up at your house uninvited. You know that Gamergaters have tried to kill people over [disagreements on the internet], right? And those incidents are still happening? Editors should have a reasonable expectation that those kinds of things are not going to happen as a result of not answering a question here, and should be able to expect that we will react if it does happen."

Our community is already toxic; we are continuously losing very productive editors as they begin to experience serious real life harassment over differences in opinion on Wikipedia, including things like I described in that discussion two years ago. It's becoming clearer and clearer that if you have not experienced this yourself because of something you did on this website, you're in a fortunate minority. Some of you are now talking about welcoming back a person who committed the same level of harassment, but in the other direction. Without some assurance that they realize just how serious their "error in judgment" was, welcoming them back to this community will do irreparable harm.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mkdw: I thought that you would have, but thank you for saying so anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leaky caldron

Please DO NOT turn this into a nice neat "time served" decision. The actions involved necessitate a permanent ban - not a welcome back. Leaky caldron (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Mabbett

Arbcom cannot "re-open" the case, because it was never open to begin with; the relevant motion stated "the case will not be opened at this time".

Arbcom should, though, open the case for which, to again cite that motion, "the request for arbitration was accepted". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should the other two involved parties, and indeed those who commented, in the previous request for arbitration not be notified of this request? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

I echo Montanabw, and just want to add, this wasn't a misstep or error, this could have ended with a valid call to the police with a harassment charge/complaint. We don't need that. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Count Iblis

Jytdog made a mistake and his statements about that mistake make it clear that he's unlikely to make such mistakes again. That should be enough to allow him to edit here again. No one should be barred from editing Wikipedia unless there is reliable information that demonstrates that the person is likely to violate the rules we have here. Count Iblis (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

I commented on the original arbitration request back in 2018. At the time, I described myself as being of two minds. While I'm still somewhat torn, I've since had an evolution of thought.

Jytdog violated an unwritten social rule: you do not contact someone using personal information that they did not provide to you directly. You just don't. It's invasive, it's stalker-esque, and it's downright scary for the recipient. If I were the one receiving that phone call, I would be contacting whoever is in a position of authority on Wikipedia to have it taken care of. I may not personally contact the police, but I can understand why somebody would.

Now, having said all that, I do think that Jytdog has genuine remorse. He described what he did as a "serious error in judgement"; it absolutely was. But as others have said, it was more than that. I want to know if Jytdog recognizes that what he did went beyond creepy and verged on being illegal. I want to know if he has given serious thought into just how unsettled the recipient of that phone call likely felt. I want to know if he truly grasps the gravity of his actions. It's not a minor issue. What he did was harassment, pure and simple. (And yes, I know I said otherwise in 2018; this was my "evolution of thought", that harassment can in fact amount to an isolated incident if it is egregious enough.)

There are two questions that I think we ought to be asking: is this singular act sufficient for a permanent ban, and does having genuine remorse mitigate what he did in the past? Honestly, I'm finding myself sympathetic to the arguments that Jytdog should not be allowed back. That was an egregious lapse in judgement that indicated a fundamental inability to grasp social boundaries, and by extension, a lack of empathy. I'm not convinced that allowing Jytdog to edit again would be in the best interests of our community – not only because I'm not confident that something like this would never happen again, but also because it sends the wrong message. We should never be tolerant of harassment or inappropriate behavior of that nature; by failing to address it properly, we are in effect saying that harassment isn't that big of a deal. But it is a big deal. It's a big deal for the person being harassed, and it's a big deal when harassment is not taken seriously. Like I said, I do think that Jytdog has genuine remorse, but sometimes that just isn't enough.

Either way, I think this needs to be dealt with via an actual case, rather than a motion to approve or decline the appeal. The Arbitration Committee would be able to gather evidence and come to an informed decision by virtue of giving themselves more time to do so. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Townlake

Dodging accountability for over a year made Jytdog's behavior more abhorrent, not less, and may sabotage the factual record. Hear the case, and watch this guy type all the right mea culpa buzzwords to try to unlock the gates, but be mindful this incident is as creepy now as it was when it happened, if not more so.

Admitting your crime is not a free pass for an open-armed welcome back. MontanaBW said nearly everything I have to say here, that Jytdog is a vigilante for whom the ends often justify the means. Such behavior is utterly toxic to this environment and should not be allowed, even aside from the real life stalking incident. If he's allowed back I have no reason to believe anything will change with him, despite his promises and the wishes of his supporters. We have a long history of banning people who "do good work" but are still a net negative to the project in some way and this is no different. Real Life stalking over a Wikipedia edit indicates a gross lack of judgement and should be a permaban, if you ask me. ♟♙ (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gandydancer

Jytdog said, "He did something malicious". "Malicious" is a fairly precise word, and its surface meaning has to do with a desire to cause harm or injury. That comment -- written as a statement of fact, not belief -- has been cited by four other people here. If the community agrees that I actually intended to cause harm then it should not allow me back, under any circumstances. Those five people have made it clear that they assume bad faith on my part; therefore as of now there is no foundation for dialogue between me and each of them." I did not participate in the last judgement and I did not plan to take part in this one either. But this statement is really disturbing. It is one thing to claim to have make a mistake in judgement but to later see your accuser as wrongful because they questioned the sincerity of your response is quite telling. I think that it is worth mentioning that after more than ten years here, most of those years working on some very contentious articles, Jytdog is the only editor that has ever asked me "officially" to end our dialog (stay off their page). Gandydancer (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Obviously there needs to be a full case but given that Jytdog essentially accepts the findings of fact, and the standard remedy would be a one year siteban, I hope that it can be expedited and that the committee will consider "time served" - Jytdog can indeed get overexcited but has done some excellent work and has shown great reserves of patience with newbies who have blundered into difficult areas. Guy (help!) 21:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: one distinct thing that Jytdog brought - and which was in fact behind his spectacularly ill-judged actions precipitating the original case - is immense reserves of patience with people that less tolerant editors might have rapidly moved to ban discussions. Put simply: Jydog is a genuinely nice person. Guy (help!) 15:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GRuban

What User:JzG just said. --GRuban (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Quoting Townlake: Dodging accountability for over a year made Jytdog's behavior more abhorrent, not less, and may sabotage the factual record. Hear the case, and watch this guy type all the right mea culpa buzzwords to try to unlock the gates, but be mindful this incident is as creepy now as it was when it happened, if not more so. There are alternative viewpoints: possible evidence of self-recognition of a burnout; avoid a month of wasted time for everyone at arbcom if they considered retiring (I don't consider implausible that someone really intends to retire but months later may want to edit, you are just back after a break since 2016 yourself); enough respect for the project to face a case and perhaps resume with their history+identity instead of socking, or ending being banned for good... I propose to extend AGF just a little, it seems that the case will be opened. —PaleoNeonate – 06:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I see discussion of supporters and detractors. What was Jytdog doing for the project in general? Editing on medical and other topics, but also protecting the encyclopedia against undue promotion, outright spam, fringe and quackery. I think that it's important, thankless and sometimes risky work, that was done tirelessly for years. We did have occasional disagrements, I remember of a bold redirect that I complained should be a merge for instance (it eventually was). I don't personally accept to go beyond WP pages themselves for communication about the project, but Jytdog did, like is more standard business, but where he also seems to have exceeded acceptable boundaries. Overall, does he merit a case if he asks for it? I think so, on a pro-Wikipedia basis more than a pro-Jytdog one. Dealing with COI, while important, is almost unrealistic (anonymous editing and policies not helping) but makes the difference between Wikipedia and Promopedia. —PaleoNeonate – 13:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Thryduulf has already offered a statement, but what really needs to be considered is what he said in his statement to the original case request in November 2018:

Having read again some of the old private discussions about Jytdog on the Functionaries list, it's increasingly clear to me that this isn't just a third offence, it's closer to an eighth offence that we know about. After every single one there are different people independently describing just how bad Jytdog is in terms like "bully" and "serial abuser" - these threads go back years. Every single time Jytdog promises not to do it again, and while he doens't do the exact same thing again he does something equally harmful that is very slightly different.

It is unclear what would be the benefit of a public case, as we can't assess these old threads detailing the past cases on the functionaries email list. In the face of this, it is either naivety or malignity to say more good faith should be assumed towards Jytdog.--Pudeo (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cardamon

As I said last time, it would be great if we can avoid a moral panic. Cardamon (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jusdafax

Thryduulf's statement on the original case request, as pointed out by Pudeo here, would seem to be of paramount importance in conducting a public ArbCom case. Will the emails providing information regarding Jytdog, referenced by Thryduulf and appearing to justify Jytdog's indef block, be considered by the Committee privately, or become part of the public record, albeit with possible redactions? I suggest the Committee review the emails in question, and if it is clear therein that Jytdog's collective actions are clearly heinous and a continued pattern, that the Committee spare everyone the timesink of a full trial, and close this by motion with a permanent ban of Jytdog.

If we are to go forward with a full case here, I also suggest outreach to the original blocking administrator, There'sNoTime, who has not edited this year, and who made what I'd call a remarkable statement during the original case request, when Jytdog supporters attacked him and his block.

I also call attention to Jytdog's amended statment here in which he states there is no "foundation" for discussion between himself and those who view his editing and off-wiki actions as malicious and in bad faith. For Jytdog to make such a statement when he otherwise comes to ArbCom hat in hand is something I find contradictory to his various apologies. One would think in such a case that trying to understand and discuss the deep concerns of multiple editors opposed to his unblock would be a major priority, instead of expressing what I can only term outright defiance, but it seems Jytdog just can't help himself and is unable to change, which is why we are here yet again. Jusdafax (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geogene

Once again we see rationality on one side, and hysteria on the other. I think that if Jytdog had no sense of honor or were otherwise out of control, as his detractors (and ideological opponents) would have us believe, he wouldn't be here presenting himself to Arbcom at all. Geogene (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Jytdog - re-opened 2018 case: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Arbs: should I block Jytdog2 as a sock and unblock Jytdog to participate in this case request --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Guerillero, Jytdog no longer has access to his original account. We have permitted him to create the Jytdog2 account solely for the purposes of making this request. – bradv🍁 04:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog - re-opened 2018 case: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Accept in the sense that the Committee needs to review whether and on what terms Jytdog should be permitted to return, although I'm open to discussion as to exactly how the review should be conducted given all the circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case is obviously accepted and should open in the next day or so. We are just working out some internal logistics such as the timetable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to resume where the committee left off last time, in order to perform a full examination of the circumstances that led to this case request and establish the pertinent principles and remedies concerning this behaviour. I would also ask that we consider the previous preliminary statements incorporated into this case request, and log them as part of this case along with the statements made here. – bradv🍁 02:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Floquenbeam, we have several options available at this point, including opening a case to investigate the matter fully, resolving this by motion (e.g. unblocking with time served), or declining the request and leaving Jytdog blocked. Given the very public nature of the initial case request, and the fact that there is no compelling need to have this discussion in private, we thought it best to hear the block appeal in the form of a public case request. It is not our intent to rehash the preliminary statements from the previous request, but at the same time it is helpful to hear reactions from the community regarding Jytdog's potential return. – bradv🍁 04:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. While this Committee is not necessarily bound by the decisions of the 2018 ArbCom (just like in any other case), there seems to be no reason to deviate from their decision to open this case. Regards SoWhy 10:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept a full case. Worm^TT(talk) 11:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, because the 2018 case was accepted, and we shouldn't set the precedent that leaving for a year is a way to avoid the scrutiny of an arb case. – Joe (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to examine the concerns about Jytdog's conduct. I think it is reasonable also to suggest that the committee may be providing more directions in the coming days about what is to be done with Jytdog's new user account (and perhaps other issues, like whether the account should be used to email other users) in the time before a final decision is issued.
   ■ 13:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Accept, as it was the committee’s suggestion to proceed this way. In my mind, the reason to proceed formally through a fresh case request is to provide visibility in case there are additional incidents not previously considered. –xeno^talk 14:38, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept It should be noted that this vote is only about accepting the case and it will be for the case itself to determine whether or not Jytdog should be allowed to return to editing, and if so, under what conditions. Mkdw ^talk 19:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivanvector: we have a high degree of confidence that the account is genuine. We were contacted by Jytdog via a known email address in advance of this appeal. Mkdw ^talk 20:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept If they want to retur to editing, there pretty much has to be a examination of the previous behavior that was rightfully accepted as a case subject by the previous committee.
  talk) 01:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Accept GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]