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 There'sNoTime

I don't enjoy arbitration cases, let alone the process of filing one - I'll make this short and to the point. Jytdog has acted in a grossly inappropriate manner, as described at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact, and I believe this falls short of our harassment policy. I don't enjoy blocking editors, and having Jytdog unable to edit the project will be a loss, but something needs to be done, as our unwillingness or weak actions give the message that we don't care, and that behaviour like this is acceptable.

I blocked Jytdog indefinitely per their previous blocks. This block was reduced to 24 hours by BD2412, citing a first offence. I don't think this is the case because of the previous Oversight and blocks reserved to ArbCom which involved private information. As this case involves information which administrators who are not functionaries cannot access, it is explicitly within ArbCom's remit.

(I don't think that BD2412 did anything against policy here, but as they reduced the initial block, I'm adding them as a party and ArbCom can keep or remove them.)

I ask ArbCom to review Jytdog's history with off-wiki issues and to take any action as they deem necessary.

Thank you for your time -

@EdChem: Thank you for the direct questions, I am of course happy to clarify:

Why a block justified more than four hours after Jytdog had stated twice that he would not make such a call again?

I have no faith in empty promises - we've heard "I won't do it again, honest!" more than once. I dislike speaking of a colleague in such a way, but I still genuinely believe actions such as these will be repeated in the future.

What part of the harassment policy was clearly violated?

In letter, I'm relying heavily on the section 'Off-wiki harassment', in spirit it's fairly clear we shouldn't find a work phone number of another editor and ring them. We shouldn't need a section to our harassment policy which states that, but by golly it looks like it's going to have to be added.

On what basis was an indefinite block justified by the discussion you cited?

Tony actually puts it as well as I could - third offence, previous two being indefs. I'm a big supporter of the whole "indef isn't infinite", to me it means blocked until a successful unblock, nothing more.

What the block was supposed to prevent and how, given it did not limit Jytdog's ability to make phone calls and he had already undertaken not to repeat his action?

A good question, and I made it very clear I did not want my block to be perceived as

WP:PUNITIVE

- obviously I don't have the ability to prevent anyone from making phone calls, but I do have the button to stop edits to Wikipedia. Does this stop off-wiki harassment? No, it does not. It does send a clear message, it is a sanction and is explicitly mentioned as a remedy in the harassment policy ("As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."

I hope these go some way to clarifying why I took the actions I did. -

@EdChem: Again, thank you for your comments. I'd like to respond to just one element of your statement for now;

"The second reason that I think your actions appear punitive is that you declared a "clear violation" of the harassment policy in the block log entry and made no mention of earlier incidents, but now declare that you are relying on its spirit."

I stated above, unequivocally, that "In letter, I'm relying heavily on the section 'Off-wiki harassment'" - my actions were based both on my understanding of the 'letter of the policy', which again I believe was violated, and the spirit in which it was designed (i.e. to protect our community against harassment of all kinds). I would not have made such a block, with such a log entry, if I did not feel the policy by letter had been violated.

As for not mentioning previous incidents in my block log entry, I'd state that was a mistake on my behalf - I truly believed it would have been clearly apparent.

Thank you -

💖 13:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

By all means everyone, continue to detract away from the issue at hand and make this about me and my clearly awful judgement - if I'd known the amount of people who would have lined up to protect an unblockable, I'm not sure if I would have filed this. The state of the community is worse than I'd thought, and the number of people willing to stand up to obvious harassment is appearing to shrink year on year. At what point will it be okay to do this? At what point will we give that little of a shit about our fellow editors that outing them won't be a big deal? -

💖 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Alex Shih: I was waiting for your comment, and whilst I respect your opinion on the matter, I'm disappointed you need to air your apparent dislike of me here of all places. Regardless, I will respond:

Did There'sNoTime block Jytdog indefinitely mostly based on their oversight block in June 2016 that was handled by ArbCom, of which the information There'sNoTime have no access to?

Other than being previously aware of the actions which caused that block, I can also view the revisions Jytdog has added which have been suppressed. I have access to enough information to make an informed decision. I do not have access to the full picture, obviously, but that's part of the reason we're here.

Do we block editors based on assumptions now?

No - I'm not sure what you do Alex, but I do not block editors based solely on assumptions.

To me this is close to being an act of intimidation which is equally a problematic behaviour.

I couldn't be intimidating if I tried Alex, and is definitely not the result I want from any actions I take here. I did what I did with the mindset of protecting the Wikipedia community - as pointed out, a block is physically fairly useless in preventing off-wiki harassment (whilst still having merits of a sort), yet it's listed explicitly as a remedy.

On a personal note Alex, if you have a problem with my conduct as an administrator generally, I'd really welcome a frank discussion on my talk page (or by email if you'd prefer) - these pot-shots are tiring -

I first asked if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have never edited their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond. I recalled remembered the number from the exhibition booth, and went ahead and just called them. Please bear in mind, that this is a phone number that was posted for the advocacy organization for the diet, and this person had posted an advertisement for the diet in WP. I expected that they would want to talk, as odd as that might sound to folks here.

I introduced myself, and asked if the person wanted to talk about what was going on. The person said "yes". I would have ended the call, had they said "no". In any case, after they said yes, the conversation very quickly went south - what happened on the phone was pretty much a duplicate of what you see on my talk page. I allowed myself to get frustrated and abruptly ended the call. It is entirely my fault, that I allowed myself to do that.

After the call, I removed the request to talk, as it was now pointless.

So:

• I called to try to help them -- that was truly my intention. I talk advocates/conflicted people off the ledge, a lot, on WP. Sometimes it goes badly. Often it goes well.
• I should have waited to see if they accepted the invitation at their talk page, instead of just calling them.
• I should not have taken the multiple risks of calling them, and will not use contact information someone does not themselves post on WP, ever again.

--Jytdog (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC) (fix "recalled" which people seem to be taking as "call again")[reply]

• Some notes
  • So, I was ready to work through this, and deal with whatever the outcome is. However...
  • I am upset by arbitrators writing that I went looking for the person's contact information, or that I called the person out of the blue in order to continue the dispute, or in order to argue with them. Not what I did, not what I intended.
  • I find Opabina's and RickinBaltimore's remarks particularly hurtful. I suppose you enjoyed producing the rhetoric, Opabina, but you have dehumanized me.
  • Mkdw's notion of a "case that reviews all of Jytdog's history with respect of off-wiki conduct relating to Wikipedia." is just.. bizarre. What does that even mean and how would we even do that?
  • I understand the passion for privacy, which is a core value here that I share and respect. I understand the shock and dismay people feel about me contacting somebody at all, using information they didn't post here. Being passionate about the value of privacy, is not a license to write hurtful stuff about me or anybody else; especially not in this forum and especially not when you are an arbitrator.
  • Responding to you again, Opabina. I understand you are identifying with the person I called, but I think anybody reviewing their approximately 30 contribs or who already interacted with them, will agree with the description of that actual person as "combative and unwilling to learn"; and no, I did not offer that description in defense of the interaction here. I fully own my role in initiating the call with that specific person, and in allowing that discussion to become a rehearsal of the dispute here. Not what I intended, not what I wanted. Then or now. I failed to keep my act together. I actually do keep my act together countless times here. There are people who are aware of that, as well as the difficulties I create for myself and others. I do fail. Too often.
  • In any case, volunteer time is the lifeblood of this beautiful project. This has already taken up a lot of time, all over my inappropriate and failed effort to try to help an advocate, whose career here is likely to be very short no matter how much anybody tries to work with them. What a waste.
  • I debated whether to just end this here and walk away from the project; as far as I can see this arbitration is derailed. More time on it is just more time wasted for everyone, and additionally I have no desire to be exposed to more of this hurtful stuff from arbitrators. But instead, I decided to write what I am experiencing and see what happens.... Maybe we can reset this, dealing with what I actually did.
  • And let me just repeat, in case this arbitration is righted and if I remain in good standing in some way - that I will never try to contact another editor again, using information that they themselves have not directly posted here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Premeditated_Chaos about your statement ...completely failed to do so in this case.... see above where I wrote "I first asked if they wanted to talk at their talk page, but given the difficulties they were having with the platform itself and the fact that they have never edited their own talk page, I was not confident they would even know to respond....".

again it is very hard to see Arbs weighing on in this without dealing with what actually happened. I understand everybody is human and time-limited and makes mistakes (me included) but my sense of despair is deepening Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

• User:Premeditated_Chaos no it doesn't say that. "recalled" =/= "call again" but "remember". I posted and asked first, and then realized they seemed to have no engagement with that page. I then tried to call and got voice mail, and then tried again to call and got through. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC) (strike Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
• User:Premeditated_Chaos thank you for correcting me. You are 100% correct. I remembered wrongly and the diff I wrote is obviously correct, and your note is correct as well. You are dealing with the facts and I departed from them. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel so terrible about this ^^. Gah. I hate bullshit and that is what I did. I am so sorry to everybody. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Ivanvector and user:Smeat75 about the Jenhawk thing. I don't want to complicate my own case, but I wrote this and this; JenHawk's next diff was this where she said she was leaving. I saw that as a reaction mostly to me. This was a complicated situation that played out since she started in May 2017. She brought a very evangelical Christian perspective in content and especially sourcing, wanted content to reflect a hopeful theological message, and often expressed that in terribly general statements. She also did a lot of close paraphrasing that we still need to fix, along with the skewed sourcing base. Her work and interactions were getting better and ~some~ of the later stuff was very good. It is unhappy that she left. You might want to unstrike, if you really want a case looking at me broadly. There is some "hook" there in the difficult interactions she and I had. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks user:Smeat75 I didn't follow her around so was judging just based on what I could see locally. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Opabinia regalis thanks for your kind note. I hear you and believe you see me as a person. :) fwiw I would prefer a motion to a full case; my stupidity in making the call and failure to keep my act together for the few minutes it lasted has already sucked up way too much of the community's time (cumulatively hours and hours of volunteer time, I reckon). Another way to say that, is that there has been a lot of feedback provided here and at WT:HA already. So I would prefer the swifter motion route, and I would trust arbcom to do what is best for the community. Whether Arbcom wants to risk making a decision without a case, and whether it wants a broad case on the history of my behavior, as some have called for, is of course up to it. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The offense cited for this block was that Jytdog made a single phone call to a publicly advertised phone number of a new editor who was struggling with Wikipedia's policies, but who had provided no other means to contact them. It appears that Jytdog politely offered advice or assistance to put that editor on the right track. There was no repetition of this incident, no outing of the other editor's private information. Our own policy on harassment defines harassment (correctly) as "threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks" (emphasis added). Notably, off-wiki communication is not directly addressed in the policy; it only remarks upon off-wiki harassment, which is not separately defined, so must be presumed to mean the same as on-wiki harassment. Since no contact was repeated, and no threats are alleged, the assertion appears to be that telephone contact is inherently intimidating, but we have no policy saying that. If that is going to be our policy, then we should say so, and should address violations prospectively, rather than retroactively defining the term to mean that.

I would also note that our policy states that "[i]ncidents of wikihounding generally receive a warning. If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours". Although it has been noted in various discussions that Jytdog has been blocked in the past for abrasive interactions, the interaction at issue in this discussion is completely different from anything that has previously been addressed, and should stand on its own. That being the case, the 24-hour block that resulted from my reduction of the initial indefinite block should be considered to resolve the issue. Trout-slaps all around, and let's not do it again.

Full disclosure: I did not consult this policy before reducing the block to that amount, but it happens to coincide, which is fine with me. I stand by the outcome. bd2412 T 23:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• One additional thought: The question here is not whether Jytdog did anything wrong. Everyone, including Jytdog, agrees that his action in this case was wrong, and should never be repeated. He agreed on this point well before a block was imposed for it. The question is merely what response is appropriate, i.e., what purpose is to be served by the consequence imposed. If it is to prevent the disfavored behavior from being repeated, we have already accomplished that. I note that the 24 hour block that I left has itself been removed by another admin for the purpose of allowing for participation in this discussion, which I suppose became inevitable once arbitration was requested. That action has not been challenged, so clearly it is not a problem for Jytdog to be permitted to continue editing even while this discussion proceeds. bd2412 T 18:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

This is certainly within the Committee's jurisdiction as it involves off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient (whether or not that constitutes harassment is being argued on-wiki), as well as previous private communication. I'll write more later but noting I agree with TNT's view that BD2412 was not wheel-warring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my close of this discussion from just a few months ago will be relevant if this is accepted as a full case. I noted in closing that discussion that Jytdog was continuing to wear the community's patience despite having been warned many times and having promised many times to do better. I have little opinion on that matter myself but the sentiment was evident in that discussion, and it is apparent that the sentiment has been building for some years. See, for example, this ANI discussion from March 2015 about Jytdog's incivility and alleged harassment, in which it was also recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, he was warned and he promised to reform. The move to telephoning editors without invitation to discuss Wikipedia disputes is an alarming trend in the opposite direction, in my view, even if he believes his intentions to be good. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one of my "general comment"s. When one applies for a functionary position, a questionnaire is sent out privately which contains a preamble warning the applicant that their application, when made public, is likely to attract considerable scrutiny on- and off-wiki. It further warns that past applicants have had private personal details revealed, and employers and families contacted, among other unwanted attention. Applicants are then asked to confirm they want to continue with their application, noting these potential consequences. No part of this is consenting to this sort of contact - we're warned that it can be a consequence of the position, not advised that it's acceptable.

The reason I'm bringing this up here is that there are some editors who seem to believe that anyone who dares to edit here ought to reasonably expect these forms of abuse, as a consequence of merely editing; some are even saying that editing here implies consent for these unwanted investigations and forms of contact, as though

I realize I didn't explain well: I brought up the extraordinary messaging in the functionary application questionnaire to demonstrate that functionary candidates are warned about this unusually abusive behaviour. It should not be and is not taken for granted that all editors on the site should expect this sort of abuse. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore for what it's worth I endorse TNT's block as warranted within admin discretion, I don't disagree with BD2412's reduction although I would not have done so myself (noting the past oversight block and topic ban) without discussing the matter with anyone first, and I was going to log in this morning and suggest that Jytdog be unblocked to participate here so I endorse Kelapstick's unblock as well. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know my statement is getting long and if the clerks need me to trim it please let me know. I have two more incidents to add for consideration. After closing the discussion I mentioned above, a number of editors approached me to argue that my one-way interaction ban close was not sufficient and demanded that Jytdog should also be sanctioned (see ANI archive and my talk page). There was no consensus to modify the close, but strong opinions were expressed in that post-close discussion that Jytdog had already exhausted their more than generous number of last chances. That sentiment should be taken into account if the Committee is deciding on sanctions here.

Following that discussion editor Jenhawk777 contacted me asking to be interaction banned from Jytdog (she was confused about the process, actually she was asking for Jytdog to be ibanned from her) because she found his actions on several articles quite emotionally frustrating. Her request is archived here. I don't know who her "friend" is who directed her to the Andy Dingley thread, but by her contribs I determined that she was in a dispute with Jytdog over some articles on historicity of the Bible. I should apologize to Jenhawk777 that I was distracted away from her complaint (I don't recall by what, likely bees) and never did follow up on it, and so whether this is another case of Jytdog hounding an editor inappropriately or just content disputes in the course of editing a topic in common I really don't know, but this could not have been related to Jytdog's noted passion for COI or MEDRS at all.

I'm bringing up these two incidents as more examples of editors' patience being exhausted, and of individual editors (noting Julia W's statement) avoiding areas that Jytdog edits because of Jytdog's aggressive behaviour. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck per Smeat75's statement. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Given the subject matter and previous blocks, I think the committee should accept this as a private case. I’ll also state that I think both administrators acted in good faith and within policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KrakatoaKatie, the relevant motion is here that lifted the topic ban. It did include a strong warning on PII, however. That isn't directly relevant here, but it is related in my opinion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EdChem: taking the liberty of speaking for There'sNoTime here, but I think the reason for an indef was that this was the third time something like this has happened (see Thryduulf’s diplomatically worded statement). Someone who has had two oversight blocks and was given a warning by ArbCom that if they came near it again they could be site banned should at least have had the common sense not to call a COI editor IRL. TNT’s actions here were reasonable in that context and his actions as well as BD’s in reducing the block should not be a focus of this case if it’s accepted: both of them were acting on policy as they understood it, and TNT’s reading of the policy certainly has consensus even if the words aren’t spelled out in part because until now we thought it was obvious.

That being said, I also strongly believe that people who have given a lot to this project should be allowed to explain themselves, which is why I support Kelapstick’s unblock and I think the committee should do something here, even if it’s an abreviated private case. Let people be heard and tell their side of it, then come to a conclusion on how to respond. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This’ll be my last response as I’ve said enough already, but just a general comment to respond to EdChem and RickinBaltimore: the policy basis for the block is As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely. Other than showing up at someone’s doorstep, I don’t know of anything that is more of an “off-wiki privacy violation” than calling someone’s place of work. We don’t spell out every possible violation or the harassment policy: we couldn’t possibly do that. We list clear principles. I think this is a bit to Worm That Turned’s point: the behavior was clearly not okay. Whether the intent was to harass or it meets the real world definition of harassment is not ArbCom’d question. The question is whether Jytdog acted in accords with our behavioral norms in this area and the principles in the English Wikipedia harassment policy. I think the answer there is no.

I’ve also been saying for the last 24 or so hours that Jytdog should be given the opportunity to explain themself and I don’t know what I think the correct response here is and am not advocating any particular sanctions, but this actually is a pretty big deal, and not something that should go away without a serious discussion by ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

• Note: Jytdog has just posted a "retirement" notice on his talk page. I suggest that ArbCom should simply go ahead with the process as though that has not happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: before declining the case as moot, please consider the possibility that no retirement is binding. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Taking into account the comments by Arbs since I made my previous comment (as well as the multiple well-taken comments by other editors that it is quite possible that the retirement will prove not to be permanent), I think it might be a good idea to pass a very minimalist motion suspending the case, specifying that the case will be resumed immediately upon Jytdog's return, if that should occur, and that Jytdog may not otherwise resume editing without the resumption of the case. But please do not in any way go beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing with no little dismay how editors are lining up to say ban or not, as though ArbCom is going to count votes about this. Whether you enact an "indefinite" ban or make a suspension in which he is banned from editing until after resumption of this case, the result is largely the same: he is banned until ArbCom says otherwise. The only difference is that, without considering a reopened case, you will be making a case decision without holding a case, and potentially in the future evaluating an appeal without having established principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Someone should full-protect his user page, and maybe semi his talk page. Otherwise, there is going to be ton of trolling. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Watching both here and at Jytdog's talk page (quite a contrast), I want to make a sort of parting comment about this case request. I know some editors will disagree with me, a lot. Don't bother arguing with me about it. What Jytdog did was unambiguously wrong. Had this gone to a case, I would have made a workshop proposal for a very severe, albeit unconventional, sanction. (As for blocking now or not, it's doesn't matter.) And I've warned him against this stuff more times than I can count. On the other hand, he is a brilliant person, and what is more a very kind and well-meaning one, whose contributions to Wikipedia have improved it dramatically. Both these things can be true at the same time. Good people make bad mistakes, more than once. No one should be reduced to a simple caricature. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Restore the indef and upgrade to a full arbcom ban. This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen on Wikipedia. Calling an editor whose number you snooped from a couple disclosures? Incredibly shocking and even more so that Jytdog thought it would be ok. This represents a fundamental incompatibility with what’s acceptable. I have sympathies per the long history of improvements to the project, but it is clear to me that Jytdog has such a deep seated COI about COI or MEDRS issues that they aren’t able to see when they’ve crossed a line. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Enough of the community has weighed in here with concerns that your proposal bypasses. Arbcom does not have the authority to do this. If a motion passes that Jytdog only needs to inform Arbcom that they have returned to editing, I will open a thread at a noticeboard seeking community consensus that a block be placed on his account that can only be removed with community consensus. Arbcom is not permitted to circumvent the community. Recent Arbcom unblocks come to mind (Guido den Bruder and Waenceslaus) where Arbcom let an editor back who immediately violated terms of returning. Enough is enough. Lastly, although Beall4 stated a desire to communicate directly with Jytdog, it is a stretch to imagine they meant for Jytdog to search the web for a phone number to call. They most certainly meant on wiki, since the comment was made on Jytdog's talk page. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has to make the final decision. Arb Com has chosen not to hear appeals from community block&bans, but it retains the power to do so. I made it clear in my campaign for re-election that I think the committee should take jurisdiction of a wider range of blocks&bans. My reason for this is the superiority of the relative qualities of mob action and committee discussion on matters involving personal judgements. Of course arb com makes errors, especially because it has been gradually moving towards a policy of giving people a final chance, which accounts for one of your examples. Errors of that sort are very easily corrected--and giving someone a chance is the only proof of whether they are suitable. So I think this practice is one of the best changes we've made in my terms there.

Of course, some people adopt a punitive view. Some people just want to punish wrongdoers to express their feeling of outrage, but what's more common is the view that punitive action can be preventative because it deters other people. I'll just say that is not my view of an fair society. It's true that it's widespread in the outside world. I consider it high among the list of the many injustices there. I'm here because WP thought it had a better way of doing things. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Thanks for your comments. Jytdog routinely engaged in off-wiki research of fellow editors, and was caught doing it several times. We don't know how many more times this happened. As a result of this latest incident, many of the community feel that he shouldn't be allowed to continue participating here. You can liken it to an injustice, but it's probably more apt to call it an inconvenience. Telling someone they need to find another hobby is no great injustice. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I claim no ability to truly know what people may have done or intended in the past, or what they are likely to do in the future. Any of us may be wrong here, and I am aware of my own uncertainties. And se my statement in the arb section, which I think I cannot really add to further. Mr Ernie, I appreciate your questions & disagreement, because being challenged makes me think about things more clearly. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Doc James

In my opinion it would depend on the content of that conversation. I have had an editor with whom I was in a dispute call me. It was not a big deal. Should we have a policy against such contact, I think so as that form of contact can easily go sideways and does not easily leave a paper trail. Jyt appears to understand the gravity of his mistake. I am fairly certain he will not repeat it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with User:Adrian J. Hunter. Different people prefer different forms of communication. Communicating by phone and in person is by far the prefered were I work and many ignore emails and online systems. Wikipedia probably collects those with a lessor preference for phone and in person meeting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

Per my comments on

I am aware of some, but not all, of the non-public context that led to Jytdog's previous blocks. In the light of that context, the comments by Ivanvector giving details of more history that I was not aware of, and the comments from other editors about this sort of behaviour in general at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact I believe Jytog has already exceeded the number of chances an editor can reasonably be given.

Harassment and/or behaviour that is or is reasonably and likely to be interpreted as harassing by the recipient cannot be excused. None of the quality or volume of your edits or the length of your tenure are relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel it important to say that I think BD242 was acting in good faith and was not wheel warring. However when an editor's block log indicates previous blocks based on non-public information, I would very strongly encourage every admin to check with those who have access to that information before removing or reducing a block, even if the most recent block was not related to non-public information (except where it is unquestionably unrelated). This is something arbcom should consider adopting as a principle or stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Opabini Regalis gives one good example but there are others too) - for the exact same reason we have

That the victim is (alleged to be) a single-purpose account could not be less relevant - the victim is a human being. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Why do you think a 30 day block will work this time when neither of the previous indefinite blocks did? Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: So? His first two blocks were preventative blocks that did not prevent his most recent action, nor did they prevent all other other times he has come close to being blocked but not been. I don't see why an arbcom sanction would make any difference what so ever - his previous topic ban didn't prevent this either. His previous promises never to do it again haven't prevented this action. What other options does arbcom have? How many last chances does someone get? Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: Jytdog has, on multiple occasions, promised not to engage in behaviour such as harassing and outing with the knowledge that repeating that behaviour will lead to serious sanction, implicitly including restoration of indefinite block. I'm not sure how many exactly were explicitly "last" chances, but there have been multiple that were implicitly so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

• I'm concerned that some arbitrators seem to think that there is no reason to examine Jytog's conduct beyond this one incident. It's clear to me from the statements on this page and the previous private discussions I've been privy to that his actions as an editor should be examined as a whole as this was not an isolated incident, and basic decency means that accusations of such serious nature as being a serious bully should not be left hanging as neither endorsed nor dismissed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

This behavior is not excusable at all and should not be tolerated, especially by a person with a history of harassment. Just think of the chilling effect this could have. Am I now to expect a call or perhaps a visit at work to discuss my Wiki posts? I can't imagine how someone can think contacting a stranger on the internet via phone is acceptable. We need a strong message and harassment by Jytdog has gone on long enough. I also think the block should not have been reduced pending a discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Context: I've been doxxed by an article subject, had them phone my house in the small hours, I've had to get a court order to unmask an anonymous harasser. I'm not a fan of harassment. I've also had unsolicited calls from people trying to help (the editor of a magazine, for example, who knew one person who was creating grief). I appreciated that. There is a difference between reaching out in person and harassment.

I have spoken to Jytdog on the phone before, at his request, I do not think he is an aggressive person (very mellow, in fact, despite a distinctly heated exchange between us on-wiki) and I am inclined to assume good faith here: I think Jytdog was almost certainly trying to be helpful in the absence of any other way to contact the user. That said, it was a terrible idea. All admin actions here are 100% understandable and in good faith.

Unfortunately we're likely to see a pile on here from people who do not appreciate Jytdog's robust editing of articles related to antivaccinationism, quackery and undisclosed paid editing. You make a lot of enemies by opposing vested interests. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 28bytes

I'm striking my previous comments due to the new information regarding Beall4's perspective of the phone call. I continue to believe that both BD2412 and There'sNoTime made reasonable admin actions in good faith and should not be sanctioned or warned, and that updating the harassment policy to include specific guidance on off-wiki contact would be a very helpful thing to do. But Beall4's description of the phone call has convinced me that my initial impression of a "helpful but misguided" call seems to have been mistaken. No one should receive calls like what was described. 28bytes (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: Re: ...nothing more than an attempt to avoid prosecution? Consider how an alleged criminal... Can we not do that, please? ArbCom cases are dehumanizing enough without these kinds of analogies. 28bytes (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davey2010

This was a terrible idea and was certainly poor judgement on Jytdogs part .... that being said it's certainly plausible that they simply tried to help the editor the best they could,

I feel his actions were done with good intentions and there was no harassment or malicious intent here, As noted above we don't actually have any sort of policy forbidding this so maybe one should be created,

Should the case be accepted (publicly or privately) ? - Personally I'd say no, Clearly it was done in good faith so in this specific case I feel this should be declined. –Davey2010^Talk 01:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with BD changing the block from indef to 24hrs - TNT and BD both acted in good faith but personally I feel indef is OTT but ofcourse we all judge things differently. –Davey2010^Talk 01:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Both comments updated/amended 19:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC))

Statement by RexxS

I've worked with Jytdog on numerous articles to help him clean up inappropriate contributions, usually breaches of MEDRS, so I do appreciate the work he does. On the other hand, I've been in direct and strong conflict with him in a case where I felt he was damaging a wiki-colleague (a Wikimedian-in-Residence), over allegations of paid editing that I felt missed the mark. During that confrontation, Jytdog suggested in email that he'd like to talk to me, but we never quite managed to fix up a Skype call before it all petered out.

I'm therefore aware of the store that Jytdog puts in talking though issues – and he's quite right that in real life, that's how problems and misunderstandings are best resolved, i.e. in real-time by two-way dialogue. So I'm not at all surprised that he would see the chance to talk as an "obvious" helpful step, and I have no problem assuming good faith on that.

What went wrong, IMHO, in this case is that Jytdog had been looking at the other editor's edits because of the problem of their posting possibly spam or promotional external links. Examining the content of the external sites linked, in itself, is perfectly normal (and actually vital) if you're trying to understand the nature of that sort of problem. It seems that one of the possibly promotional links contained a clear phone number which Jytdog saw. Where it went wrong was that he seems to get too involved in an issue and that clouds his judgement. He should have realised that using that phone number to make contact had the potential to blow up in his face. Most uninvolved observers would form that conclusion, I believe.

Having said all that, I sincerely believe that Jytdog has now come to his senses and understands how bad an idea that phone call was. I only hope he'll give us some reassurance that he now understands how he sometimes allows himself to be so involved that he can follow a bad idea like that, and that he'll be particularly careful to recognise how it can happen, and will take measures to reduce the chance of anything like it ever happening again. Heck, I'll even offer to take a Skype call from him myself if he wants another opinion when he has another idea like this last one. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by olive

Simply put: I don't support an indef. I would suggest a line has been crossed and I would assume Jytdog realizes he went too far. Above all our first consideration must be to treat other editors with respect and patience as if we want them to stay around. We are editors but we are also the ones who help train new editors - support them. It takes time and may be frustrating but that's part of the job in my opinion. And while the end never justifies the means, as I said, a sanction is probably not necessary this time. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: Thank you so much for your comment on gender. I didn't bring my own experience into this which includes two separate instances of editors repeatedly calling me with out permission in one instance at clearly timed intervals. It is creepy, scary and is disruptive to the sense of safety a family has. I don't think Jytdog realized how impactful phone calls with out explicit permission can be and such calls can have a greater impact on women. Because we can't know how such a call can be impactful is exactly why we don't do it.Ever.Littleolive oil (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kelapstick

I’ve unblocked Jytdog, as noted on his talk page. Blocks are preventative and the likelihood of reoccurance in the next day is nil. Now he can participate correctly.

Related to this request. Jytdog, while a villagant combatant of COI, has been down this road before (oversight blocks are nothing to take lightly), and so far as I know, the topic ban mentioned by KK hasn’t been lifted. Simply put, he should know better.

Thanks to those pointing out the lifting of the topic ban. The fact that a ban is lifted does not mean that a user should not tread lightly in formerly problem areas. Even if there are no active sanctions. —kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Montanabw

While I can appreciate that Jytdog cares about the issues where he edits, and on at least one issue we agree, I think his behavior in this instance, however provoked he thinks it may have been, went over the top. If we don't have a policy that "off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient" is unethical, then it's high time we get one.

Jytdog has exhibited this pattern for years of being unable to cool down when he is challenged, and he can't hide behind MEDRS as an excuse to be a

To be clear: If someone enables email, they agree to be contacted via email. But unless we create a little checkbox that says "here is my phone number and I consent to be contacted via telephone," then HELL NO, we don't breach the anonymity of Wikipedia. No one should just be called up out of the blue unless they have previously agreed to such contact via an agreed-upon method.

A gray area is if someone does post their name or phone number on their userpage or something. But personally, I still think it is wise to never initiate contact with another editor that I know only via WP other than with the "email this user" feature.

I mean, in some jurisdictions, including where I live, unwelcome contact triggers the warning provision of the stalking statutes. (and the intent of the initiator is irrelevant.) If I tell person X, "do not contact me again" and they contact me again, it doesn't matter a flying f--- what they say, it's my privacy that is to be respected. Their behavior is enough for me to to file a stalking complaint in my jurisdiction.

All that said, maybe Jytdog meant no harm, but he's got to learn how to dial it back. I am not certain what the appropriate sanctions on Jytdog should be at this point, as I have not reviewed the situation fully, nor at the moment do I have time to do so. BUT, this is classic Jytdog: disagree with him and if you don't completely roll over and play dead, he just keeps upping the ante until he goes nuclear.

As far as whether Jytdog needs to be indeffed, or given a 12-month ban, or just have an assigned nanny to remind him that

A proposal to expand the policy to cover the issue under question is at WT:Harassment#Suggested revision. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdChem

Maybe there are things that I am missing, but the reaction that Jytdog has received seems to me to be over the top and statements appear based on large assumptions. For example:

• Montanabw states that If we don't have a policy that "off-wiki communication which has been alleged to be unwelcome by the recipient" is unethical, then it's high time we get one. That's reasonable, as far as it goes, but where is the evidence here that the call was unwelcome to Beall4? Jytdog has said, repeatedly, that his first act on the phone call was to identify himself and ask to discuss the situation, and that he received a response of "yes". That doesn't suggest the call was unwelcome, rejected, or found to be harrassing / intimidating, and those statements are (as far as I am aware) undisputed. Now, the call became problematic / unproductive and heated and, it appears, Jytdog hung up, but that is not proof that it was experienced by Beall4 as harassment.
• Others have made similar statements, such as
  Iridescent's statement that I think this behavior is grossly unethical and totally unacceptable with Doc James
  ' rather more nuanced (and realistic) In my opinion it would depend on the content of that conversation. Are the former comments really reasonable if the call was agreed to by Beall4 at the start and included frustration and disagreement but no threats or harassment?
• Ivanvector's statement also cites a previous ANI case to support the implicit assertion that the call constituted harassment even if Jytdog was trying to be helpful: See, for example, this ANI discussion from March 2015 about Jytdog's incivility and alleged harassment, in which it was also recognized that his behaviour was inappropriate, he was warned and he promised to reform. The move to telephoning editors without invitation to discuss Wikipedia disputes is an alarming trend in the opposite direction, in my view, even if he believes his intentions to be good
• In short, I suspect that Jytdog's reputation with some editors (as JzG noted) and the previous ban (which I do not know recall details of, but which I presume was serious) are colouring views of the present event. It is surprising how few comments even note that hearing from Beall4 would be helpful (and thanks to Cameron11598 for contacting Beall4 and adding them as a party).
• Jytdog's view that a call might be acceptable can be seen in Beall4's editing. The
  Talk pages
  are about discussing how to improve the article. Academic discussions that don't forward this goal are off-topic. In this context, is Jytdog's idea for changing the venue to a verbal conversation so unreasonable?
• I will not defend Jytdog's decision to call without waiting for a response to the user talk page message that he left, as it was (at best, in my opinion), foolish. I do not see any evidence, however, that makes offering the suggestion unacceptable or inappropriate. Perhaps he might not have identified where he got the phone number, but that is a minor detail.
• I do not see the justification for jumping to an indefinite block by There'sNoTime as a "Clear violation of our harassment policy - see Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact". As Tryptofish noted, the block was made more than four hours after Jytdog had said I am hearing what people are saying. I should not have taken the risk and will not do so again. Jytdog had also already said Calling the person was a high risk thing to do for sure. If it would have gone well -- if the person had come away understanding how we use MEDRS and what they were doing wrong -- it would have been good for everybody. However I should have a) had my act way more together in the call instead of getting upset by the person's combativeness and b) beforehand, considered the risk that (i) it would go south (ii) it would be badly received by the person afterwards if it went south; (iii) considered how it could be framed here. Considering those things now, I would not have done it and I will not be be trying that again. Just what was it that was being prevent by this block? I note the context of Drmies preceding comment that Even if you're trying to be helpful this is not cool, a comment followed by discussion of threats and genuine harassment and feeling fearful. These are reasons why Jytdog calling without having permission was unwise and potentially frightening, but it must be remembered that there is no evidence (as far as I am aware) of Jytdog having made threats or engaged in harassment. There'sNoTime, I think you need to explain:

1. Why a block justified more than four hours after Jytdog had stated twice that he would not make such a call again?
2. What part of the harassment policy was clearly violated?
3. On what basis was an indefinite block justified by the discussion you cited?
4. What the block was supposed to prevent and how, given it did not limit Jytdog's ability to make phone calls and he had already undertaken not to repeat his action?

ArbCom, if you are to take this on (either as a case or a motion), please look at what has been said with an eye to what is fact and what is assumption. I do think the initial block was questionable given that the evidence for harassment on which it was based appears to be all assumption, and as it prevented nothing (especially given Jytdog's prior statements on wiki). That Jytdog was stupid to call without waiting for permission is evident, but that does not make it harassment. Doc James and others have received such calls and found them unproblematic, others have found them disturbing and unwelcome, but I don't think that they become sanctionable unless they are truly harassment, threats, or other inappropriate behaviours. EdChem (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: Thanks for your comments, and I do see that a stronger reaction makes sense for the third time something like this has happened, but that leads to another problem. TNT's block log entry asserts a Clear violation of our harassment policy - see Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Off-wiki contact. It makes no mention of prior incidents and so is, at best, highly deficient in presenting necessary information to anyone viewing the log. Further, for Jytdog's action to be a clear violation of the harassment policy, there needs to be some evidence of harassment, and I don't see that clear evidence. Finally, lacking any clear policy basis for a block to be imposed, the appropriate action would have been to start an ANI discussion or an ArbCom case, not to unilaterally impose an indefinite block. I don't accept that the harassment policy implicitly prohibits off-wiki contact of this nature unless the content of the contact is harassment, etc. I also don't accept that it should as it would class as harassment an action that may be poorly considered but certainly need not be harassing. Now, Jytdog should have waited for a response to his post to user talk:Beall4, but stupidly not doing so doesn't turn a single phone call where he identified himself and asked for permission to discuss the on-wiki situation into harassment. EdChem (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @There'sNoTime: Thank you for providing direct replies to my questions. I appreciate your willingness to explain and I do see the reasons for your choices, but I remain concerned about some of your choices. Regarding the timing of your block, I can understand having no faith in empty promises, but given that you did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE, I am struggling to see the wisdom in acting unilaterally. You could have started this RfAr or an ANI thread without making a block and sought consensus on what to do. That would have avoided concerns about punitive actions far more convincingly than by [making] it very clear I did not want my block to be perceived as WP:PUNITIVE. Given the actions were off-wiki and so not prevented by a block and given Jytdog's posts, the chances of any repeat in the short term seem low, and so there was no urgency.
• The second reason that I think your actions appear punitive is that you declared a "clear violation" of the harassment policy in the block log entry and made no mention of earlier incidents, but now declare that you are relying on its spirit. Your comment that in spirit it's fairly clear we shouldn't find a work phone number of another editor and ring them reads to me as saying that simply making such a phone call, irrespective of what is said, is harassment, and I don't agree – Doc James has spoken of not feeling harassed by such calls, for example. While I would not make such a call without first receiving permission, I don't think a blanket prohibition that declares any and all such calls are harassment is reasonable or justified. I really think that acting hours after Jytdog's comments on a "clear violation" that is arguably no violation makes your action look punitive and suggest another agenda – especially when the block itself cannot prevent the problematic action.
• Had you taken it to ANI, suggesting Jytdog's actions were outside community norms and suggesting a ban, you would have been on much more solid policy grounds. I wonder if the reason you did not take (or perhaps even consider) this response was due to projection from your own experiences? You write in your general clarification that the reason behind my rename and other changes was due to getting harassment over the phone - this upset me greatly and still affects me. I don't wish that on anyone, "good faith" or not. I am sad to hear that you have been harassed, and I note that harassment is never acceptable and certainly is a grounds for blocks and bans. I am further saddened to learn that you continue to feel the effects of harassment and had to take steps to protect yourself. I am glad that you choose to continue to contribute to WP and I do understand why you might view Jytdog's actions as obviously being harassment. However, may I ask you to reflect on whether this makes you the best person to impose the block rather than the best person to start an ANI discussion. Your ability to empathise to how Beall4 might have felt is an asset in discussing why such actions are serious and unwise and potentially sanctionable... but they are also a potential liability to objectively deciding whether there was harassment in this case.
• It appears to me now that you made two mistakes: you imposed a block asserting a policy violation that was not clearly established and you failed to record in the log the important fact that you took into account previous oversight actions. I think both happened because your experiences led you to see the situation as much nastier than it appears to me to be. A more conservative consensus-seeking approach would have been wiser in the circumstances, and I hope that you will reflect on whether your choices here were truly objective. For the record, I am not suggesting that you should be sanctioned, but I do think your choices here were less than ideal. EdChem (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WBG

Echo EdChem, in entirety who has superbly crafted the entire stuff and Guy's last line. And, whilst TNT certainly acted in good faith, IMO, that was a bad call.∯WBG^converse 06:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alex Shih

The initial block needs to be scrutinised. Did There'sNoTime block Jytdog indefinitely mostly based on their oversight block in June 2016 that was handled by ArbCom, of which the information There'sNoTime have no access to? Do we block editors based on assumptions now? As Tryptofish and EdChem have pointed out, blocking Jytdog four hours after they have made the reflection on not to repeat the behaviour with the mere basis that "you don't believe them" needs to be better justified (paraphrased from User_talk:Jytdog#November_2018). What is the purpose of this block, "to send a message"? Excuse me, but the blocking tool should never be used for the purpose of one administrator sending a unilateral message without the explicit backing of a community consensus. To me this is close to being an act of intimidation which is equally a problematic behaviour. Communicate first before you act; ArbCom needs to comment on the policy aspect of this entire issue (not just the technical aspect of the block itself).

Once we have the block issue resolved, we can move on to the next issue, in which there is of course no excuse for Jytdog's recurring poor decisions and aggressive editing behaviours despite of years of promise "to do better" (they have improved in their approach, but the occasional relapse is deeply unhelpful). Jytdog's tireless works in combating COI and paid editing are under appreciated, especially in the face of many ArbCom members past and present that are far too disconnected from the community to realise the lasting damage paid editing has on our project; instead there seems to be a trend to claim moral high ground and inadvertently shelters (in the name of "protection") those whose only intention is to use Wikipedia as a platform for their promotion. Regardless, Jytdog need to know when to stop, and we cannot continue going in circles about this. Ask for help from administrators/functionaries whenever possible instead of being creative and come up with solutions that are often very inappropriate in the context of communication on Wikipedia. But this has been blown way out of proportion despite of the fact that talk page discussion was going in the right direction. A case is unnecessary, please handle this by motion. Alex Shih (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ARBPOL. If you are uncertain about the consequences in which of your administrative actions in this case will bring (your uncertainty was apparent in the immediate aftermath of the unblock discussion), is it unreasonable to ask you to ask first, which would be the same response you should be giving to Jytdog? Did you seek any input from oversight-l or other functionaries, or did you simply decide that you should be the one to make example out of Jytdog and send out a general message about your interpretation of Wikipedia:Harassment? I think this is a legitimate question to ask, but of course your opinion may differ. Alex Shih (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

@Nick: Your disagreement is noted, but your personal commentaries about my "incompetence" and other assumptions irrelevant to this case request is not. L235, Miniapolis, Cameron11598: would one of you please consult ArbCom on whether or not Nick's commentary is compatible with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Participation? If yes, please declare so; if no, please remove them accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of the responses by Opabinia regalis and Worm That Turned below are based on the very "assumptions" that EdChem have highlighted in their statement. To characterise this as some sort of "dispute" between Jytdog and Beall4 is incorrect; although this apparent impression is mostly the fault of Jytdog, who frequently gets far too aggressively involved in their attempt to maintain MEDRS standards over edits by single purpose accounts that seemingly has promotional intents; it is wrong and a ban (after renewed discussion) would certainly be justified. One has to follow the entirety of exchange on Wikipedia starting here ([1]) between Jytdog and Beall4 to get the perspective of Jytdog. There is no justification for Jytdog's action in the context of Wikipedia, but we need to understand perspectives of different sides before jumping to conclusions. Context matters; Jytdog can be justifiably sanctioned for persistent poor decisions, but we must not give false equivalence by characterising their action as some sort of harassment attempt or comparing them to unsolicited contacts from a male stranger to a female. What they did was simply a very poor decision lacking the common sense expected for a experienced editor, particularly from someone that has been sanctioned for similar editing behaviour before. But I cannot emphasize enough on the importance of having a discussion first in non-emergency situations so that we can make sure all of the implications are being resolved. Alex Shih (talk)

@KrakatoaKatie: "We can relate as women": How inappropriate, the gender comparisons really needs to stop. Harassment comes from all genders and affects all genders in the context of Wikipedia, and you know that very well. I understand the analogy was introduced to illustrate a point, but it is irrelevant and off topic to this very case request. This case request is not about harassment, but about Jytdog's inappropriate actions that constitutes a pattern, as you and others have identified. So please do as you said in your very same statement and focus on nothing but the conduct of an established editor accessing and acting on off-wiki contact information instead of continuing to promote a potentially divisive rhetoric that was produced with no evidence that it's at all relevant to this discussion, as noted by Opabinia regalis herself. Alex Shih (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I don't know if my comment was one of the comments you are referring to, but for the sake of clarity please allow me to explain my perspective if I may. Collapsing as the following content is likely over word limit and is not directly related to the case request, but rather it is a general response to several statements that have been made. Alex Shih (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add the end note that I am 100% in support of the sentiments expressed by DGG. There is a lot more that I want to say but nothing further will be serve any useful purpose, so I suppose it is time to close the chapter. Alex Shih (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smartse

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm in the camp of this being a bad idea but it was done with the intention of helping and not harassing the user. I've read through all of he harassment policy and there is definitely nothing to say that you shouldn't do this. I get that some people think it's blindly obvious that you shouldn't but we can't enforce non-existent policies. Given the admission by Jytdog that he realises now it was a bad idea and won't do it again, the block was unnecessary and I don't see what opening a case would achieve. SmartSE (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I disagree entirely with Alex Shih, who is once again demonstrating his staggering incompetence. The initial block was 100% justifiable given the circumstances alone, never mind Jytdog's previous behaviour and the question of the topic ban potentially still being in force at the time the block was made. The community remains enormously fortunate Alex stepped away from ArbCom and isn't running this year, given how wrong he is yet again. I would strongly encourage the community to explicitly prohibit the type of contact Jytdog has made by expanding and modifying the relevant policies, so nobody can be under any illusion as to how the community views such behaviour, or that such behaviour is anything other than entirely inappropriate. If you want to telephone someone, you must wait for them to ask you and to offer their phone number themselves, freely, willingly and not under any sort of duress. Nick (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Shih: I believe, in light of the allegations you have made concerning There'sNoTime and their administrative actions in this case, your incompetence be flagged to the committee and the wider community so they can understand why you're wrong. I don't believe you're being malicious, just that you lack the necessary competence to correctly understand what it is There'sNoTime was doing and why. I have no issue with my comments being redacted by a clerk, in fact, to make life easier, if my concerns regarding your incompetence Alex are judged to be in breach of the arbitration policy, a clerk can replace my entire statement with The initial block was 100% justifiable given the circumstances alone, never mind Jytdog's previous behaviour and the question of the topic ban potentially still being in force at the time the block was made. I would strongly encourage the community to explicitly prohibit the type of contact Jytdog has made by expanding and modifying the relevant policies, so nobody can be under any illusion as to how the community views such behaviour, or that such behaviour is anything other than entirely inappropriate. If you want to telephone someone, you must wait for them to ask you and to offer their phone number themselves, freely, willingly and not under any sort of duress.. Nick (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: I disagree that the block of Joefromrandb can remotely be described as being 'in error'. The case was certainly complex but imposing an indefinte block in the circumstances was a valid (and in my opinion) sensible administrative action. I also note that the resulting discussion of the block did in fact close with a simple majority (but no consensus) in favour of either a lengthy or indefinite block, and I further note, in an ironic twist, the chief cheerleader against the block are now blocked indefinitely because of their own battleground mentality editing issues. I'd go make a nice apology to There'sNoTime if I were you, Geogene. Nick (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Literaturegeek

I feel that the case should proceed, partly because if it is stalled then recollections of what was said during the telephone call will fade over time, lessening the quality of evidence. I agree with tryptofish as well that retirements are not binding; further, an off-wiki communication case could apply to future violations by other editors - this is not just about jytdog. @Beall4: has still not disclosed what was said to her by jytdog, so we still do not know the seriousness of this situation. We know the conversation went south, but was there serious abusiveness involved in what was spoken? Of course, it may be the case Beall4 does not wish to elaborate on the ‘derogatory’ content of said phone conversation.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remember jytdog recently commenting on-wiki that Wikipedia is highly addictive (I did look for the diff), I think therein lies the problem. Jytdog, I think it is fair to say, is thoroughly addicted to Wikipedia and what its content says which provokes aggressive editing - his motives are well meaning due to concern for our readers. With this background I think there is a risk he could reactivate the jytdog account; on his talk page he has requested that he be indefinitely blocked or given a siteban - his wish should be granted. It is possible after a long time out and time to think, he might be able to return to editing having addressed the core reasons for his problematic editing. I encourage an indefinite block for everybody's sake, particularly jytdog's. I would be keen to see jytdog return, perhaps 6 or 12 months from now with a different attitude, as he is a knowledgeable and skilled editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Softlavender

Jytdog's phone-call was boneheaded, idiotic, and wildly inappropriate. I think nearly everyone agrees with that. However, he had already agreed never to do that again, four hours before TNT blocked him indefinitely, apparently as a retroactive punishment and unilateral banishment from the realm. In terms of this RFAR, no prior dispute resolution has been attempted. If TNT merely wanted the Committee to review "previous Oversight and blocks reserved to ArbCom which involved private information [involving] information which administrators who are not functionaries cannot access", in order to disprove or confirm BD2412's claim of a first offence, it seems to me all he had to do was email ArbCom and leave the matter with them. Otherwise, in terms of Jytdog's fate, the matter should have been brought to AN or to ANI, to assess if any sanction gained community or administrative consensus.

There seems to be no point of ArbCom blocking or re-blocking Jytdog for making an egregious error in judgment and engaging in sleuthed unsolicited phone contact, because such a block would be merely punitive. There may be a case to be made for looking into Jytdog's unilateral missteps, which seem to pop up from time to time, but at this point I think all that is needed is to admonish him to stop taking matters into his own hands and to instead bring them to a noticeboard when there are problems with an uncommunicative editor.

Back to TNT, I think Alex Shih is correct that TNT stepped way out of bounds on this one and his actions bear looking into even more than Jytdog's, but at this point do we really need a case about the whole thing?

Let's just step back and reflect that at least two people screwed up royally and that two wrongs do not make a right. I think it can probably end there unless ArbCom does want a full case as opposed to a decline or a motion. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: I am not excusing Jytdog's genuinely boneheaded action in the least, but one fact he has stated elsewhere but neglected to put in his statement here is that Beall4 did not and does not have email enabled on Wikipedia, therefore he could not be contacted that way. At least not until he enabled email -- which Jytdog should obviously have suggested if he really wanted to help the person or resolve things privately off-wiki. Softlavender (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: 28bytes' statement:

  Better to just explicitly state in the harassment policy that unsolicited contact via phone (or Facebook message, or whatever) is often unwelcome and thus strongly discouraged. Let's fix this at the policy level rather than focus on one editor who broke an "unwritten rule" that is either "too obvious a violation to mention" or "fine depending on the context" depending on who you ask.

  I agree with that, but I would add that it's never OK. Unsolicited contact via phone is never OK, period. I find it kind of bizarre that this needs to be spelled out, but apparently it does.

  And I agree with 28bytes that it's better handled at the policy level than trying to parse an unrecorded phone conversation involving an editor who has not communicated anything on-wiki about said conversation, and an editor whose motives we really cannot parse either beyond what he tells us. Lack of evidence therefore prevents examination of the particular case in question, beyond the few diffs leading up to the call. Softlavender (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

I would like to point out that there are a range of possible sanctions between a toothless admonishment and the death penalty. An Arbcom-imposed 30 days might be the wake-up call needed to end the problematic content warriorism, which is the true source of this horrible judgment off wiki. Carrite (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf — None of the previous blocks were Arbcom sanctions. An irreversible shortish Arbcom block would be a big shot across the bow. I urge the committee not to think in terms of a dichotomy between "Do Nothing" and "Terminate User." Carrite (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf — Per: "How many last chances does someone get?" — By definition, one. Has he received this yet? Now, how many chances does one get? That's a more accurate question. And that answer is: as many as necessary before the collective decision is made that the negatives outweigh the positives and that there is no point in attempting to further keep a person in the project. JYT has generated big positives and big negatives. Balancing that scale is not easy. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A good point was made in the JYTDog thread at Wikipediocracy: JYT should have given the new user his phone number, that way the contact would be made at the option of the other user. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pldx1

Saying "this was not intended to harass anyone", together with promising to not reiterate such a bad move doesn't solve the real life problem. Moreover, this doesn't solve the Wonderland problem either. You can promise to not repeat something voluntary done from bad will, but you cannot promise to not repeat something involuntary done from stupidity. Previsional timeline: Jytdog will be given an iterative n-th last chance, until The Wikipedia Company cuts the Gordian knot. Being at risk when you are rich is not what SanFran will want to live with. Pldx1 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear User:David J Wilson. Anyone is allowed to privately conduct any inquiry she wants... and, to be honest, cannot even be prevented from. One click from the name of a congress to the list of participants. One click from this list to Google Earth or Google Maps. One click from that to Real Estate Agencies web sites. And now any inquirer can see if the said house has a fractional number of bathrooms, or an integral one. But you are not allowed to publish here, on wiki, any result from your off-wiki inquiries. Even discussing, here, if this house is a private dwelling or something else is a breach of privacy. In an ideal wold, this should be addressed by a last warning. But seeing how lax is the response to Jytdog himself, may be this world is not as ideal as it should be. Pldx1 (talk) 11:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • follow-up: Thanks to you, dear User:David J Wilson, for having modified your initial comment. My intent was not to fault you about anything, but rather to underline how any slight breach of privacy could impact real life people, the obvious ones, and even the others. Once again, thanks for your reaction. Pldx1 (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear
  User: Flyer22 Reborn. Yes. You are right, nobody sees that [Jytdog] meant to harass [a] new editor. But this is not the point. User:Beall4 was not interacted with as a supposed new editor, but as a supposed COI editor, more precisely, a seller of something, trying to use WP to advertise their snake oil (my own words, summarizing my own perception of what happened). Someone who so blatantly don't understand why he should not phone the dragon before (figuratively) killing him, should not be left in the situation of playing the character of the Righteous Saint Georges Killing the Snake Oil Dragon.Pldx1 (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Dear User:bluerasberry. The word unsolicited seems to be missing, otherwise your assertion could be taken as you are allowed to phone call your beloved ones, even if they are also Wikipedians. Supposing now that your assertion has to be parsed as Unsolicited off-wiki communication is not a crime!, let me assert a two-fold dissent. Concerning the real life part of the thing, Nuisance calls have various legal qualifications. These qualifications cannot be discussed here, because a) this would require to invade the privacy of the callee (specific state of residence, specific destination/use of the house, and so on) and b) this would amount to give a legal advice, contrary to our policies. Concerning the Wonderland aspect of the thing, not understanding that privacy is a requirement and pushing this up to the point of committing repetitive breaches of the said privacy is a ban-able condition. This should be enforced here, instead of giving the feeling of an "unstated free ride permission". Pldx1 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Dear User:Euryalus. You have said support motion, block is academic if account password scrambled. Are you using academic with the meaning erudite/lettered or with the meaning bookish/scholastic ? In any case, it seems that password scrambled is about the account that some real-life person was using, while banned is about this very real-life person. I am surprised to see an arbitrator not stating clearly the difference between a shadow in Wonderland and a real person, living in the real world. This difference was the core of the present case, was it not ? Pldx1 (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the password is scrambled, the account can't be used. So a block on the account is largely symbolic. Sorry but I don't understand your reference to shadows in Wonderland. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that accounts and people are different kinds of animals, and that we must not identify what happens in the real-life world and what happens in the abstract world, Through the Looking-Glass, here at wp, call it any name you want, where accounts are rather masks and pseudonyms, aka shadows in Wonderland. In the Internet, nobody knows you are a dog (says the cat). Account Jytdog has said "password scrambled", so that any activity of this account will result into a "compromised account alert", this seems clear. But what about the real-life person whose avatar was the account Jytdog ? Does the actual motion states that the said real-life person is blocked/banned at least until a full case is reopened, or is the said real-life person allowed to create, say, a Kzueph account and proceed further on ? This is not symbolic at all, and this is your duty to pass motions that are sufficiently precise to tell what is closed and what remains open. Pldx1 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kurtis

As with many other issues, I am of two minds.

Do I feel that Jytdog behaved inappropriately in giving another editor a phone call over an on-wiki disagreement, particularly in light of the fact that the recipient of his off-wiki interaction never explicitly gave him his number? Of course I do. Frankly, if I were on the receiving end of such a phone call, I'd be deeply unsettled, to the extent where I would likely contact somebody associated with Wikipedia about it. I don't believe that there was any malice in his actions, nor do I feel that it constitutes harassment in the strictest sense (i.e. attention that is persistent as well as unwanted), but it nevertheless falls outside the bounds of socially acceptable behavior.

Now, do I feel that his actions merit some sort of sanction? That I'm not so sure of. I know that Jytdog has a history of inappropriately escalating disagreements with other editors, so this cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. However, unless I'm missing something, it's the first time he's done something of this nature in a long while. He has also apparently expressed remorse, which is a positive sign that something like this will hopefully not happen again. Should we take his assurances at face value, or does his history preclude offering him another chance?

I don't know if arbitration is necessary at this juncture. While it might involve sensitive information, the community knows the basic gist of what happened, and we likely have the power to make a decision on that basis. Then again, I'm not privy to all the details, so I think it would be a good idea for the committee to review the private evidence and decide whether a full case is needed. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrX

An Arbcom case is not necessary and would not be particularly helpful. The incident is not in dispute. There is no private evidence that needs to be heard that would be informative. Jytdog made an unsolicited call to an editor with whom he was in dispute, violating the spirit, if not the letter, of

A reading of recent harassment policy talk page archives, especially this one, shows that Jytdog has an aggressive viewpoint concerning COI and UPE and has received ample feedback from the community about it. He should have known that his actions would lead to negative consequences.

Please decline the case request. The original block should have stood until it could be reviewed by the community. At this point, it should be referred back to the community so that a proper remedy can be determined through consensus, taking into account Jytdog's substantial positive contributions but also his previous history of aggressive anti-COI/anti-UPE actions. This will also provide an opportunity to bolster the

I have been the target of a fair bit of bullying from Mr. Jytdog. In any study of a contributor's harassing behaviour, the context is important. So... here is some context as to how their bullying has been used. In Nov. 2016, Jytdog made up stuff about promotional editing on the Singapore page, which he then retracted here. This false, retracted, accusation was used against me by Cirt / Sagecandor in December 2016.

Much less "stale": during my unblock request (after it had been recognized I had been railroaded out of the project by a sockpuppet of a former sysop), Jytdog would not drop the stick (cf. here), and shortly thereafter became disruptive, again battlegrounding on the syphilis page. (A short background on this matter can be found either at the talk page itself or in my close to their bullying behaviour on my talk page). As with the original incident about Singapore, they were incorrect in their assertions and ended up by recognizing this fact.

Though I have since found good material about both Rabelais' & Shakespeare's relationship to syphilis/the pox. I have refrained from adding it because of this contributor's threatening behaviour (though I have added it it to fr.wp, and to the en.wp article on Rabelais). This is an example of how jytdog's harassment/disruptive behaviour has prevented improvements being made to the encyclopedia.

As many of you know there are very detailed complaints about jytdog in the "governance" thread at Wikipediocracy. It is, I believe, the most visited thread about a single contributor on that site. (rapidly approaching 30,000 views)

I have provided these examples of Jytdog's errors concerning my edits on Singapore and on syphilis as a service to the inquiry into their problematic behaviour. Please ping me if you need any further input. — 🍣 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 13:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

I agree with Jusdafax and Tyrptofish that this case should continue despite the "retirement" of Jytdog in the wake of the sudden and unexpected appearance of Beall4. Unretirements are as common as retirements, and agree that the indefinite block should be reinstated. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re a motion to suspend: that's probably the worst possible outcome, as it presupposes that Jytdog's departure is temporary. If it's temporary, then we should proceed while memories are fresh. If you take him at his word, give him the community ban that he himself has asked for. His request should be granted. However, given the history of indeffs that aren't indeff at all, and given his statement that he will never come back, again, take him at his word. Give him what he wants. Make it not subject to appeal.Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: You have said "support motion, block is academic if account password scrambled." I don't see how you can possibly say that. The motion explicitly refers not just to the "Jytdog" account but to any account that person may create, so his scrambling of the password of his current account is superfluous. This poorly crafted motion, as currently written, makes no opinion on the underlying issues upon which more than six dozen editors have given statements. Not if but when Jytdog returns in a few weeks or months, we're back to square one. He has asked for an indefinite block or a ban. Why aren't you giving it to him? Why are you "more Catholic than the Pope"? Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The motion would prevent him from editing under this or any other account, whether or not we block this one now. But this is not worth us arguing about; on the basis of information received both here and privately, including some received in the last few hours, I'm now entirely satisfied that a block is necessary and have made this clear in the motion vote. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that's a correct decision. A block would head off some of the inevitable wikilawyering ("I wasn't blocked so yadda yadda yadda") you or your successors will get when he seeks to return. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Following up on Coretheapple, it must always be remembered to never treat

I find the argument against the 'gender' comments rather overwrought (especially what appears to be the high dudgeon of some) -- it just so happens that that is a population that in rather high-profile ways is implicated, but what it actually points to is the broader issue that all kinds of people are potentially impacted by uninvited contact. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: @Mkdw:: How about split the difference and remove permissions (ie all editing permissions - indefinite) after three or six months of no action like in the Schumanweb case. That way it has a somewhat more known and settled ending. (Let me add, if I may, I think this is all unfortunate, regardless of the outcome). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Voceditenore

I am very concerned about Jytdog's false assertion that the person he telephoned had provided information about their contact phone number that was easily findable via "one step". He based this solely on Beall4's edit summary "I have updated the core content. As a doctor of pharmacy with experience in analyzing and presenting medical data, and as an organizer of the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" exhibit at NASPGHAN in which four of the referenced published authors participated, I felt the need to reflect the current science supporting the role of dietary therapy and SCD.". (Redacted). Nor does their edit summary specifically refer to (Redacted), nor does it refer to the (Redacted), nor did that editor provide a link to (Redacted) in their version of the article in dispute. I tried all of them. Finding that phone number involved (Redacted). This was not one step. (Redacted)

In my view, this is the same kind of "research" that got him an indef block and a "topic ban from all matters related to COI editing. This includes investigations and allegations against other editors". I'm sorry, but while there was no outing per se, this completely violates the spirit of that ban. Furthermore, I personally consider his act of telephoning an editor about a dispute he was having with them—without their prior permission on-wiki or via their on-wiki email and whose phone number had required considerable research and guesswork to find—to be harassment or at the very least intimidation and a gross violation of privacy. This whole affair needs much closer examination (whether it is by ArbCom or a community discussion) rather than simply writing it off as "trying to be helpful gone wrong". It's much more than that. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: I think you've added the wrong name as a party. It should be User:Beall4 not User:BD2412. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cameron11598: Whoops! What I should have said was I think you forgot to add User:Beall4 as a party. Was that intentional? Voceditenore (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding that the fact that Beall4 hasn't complained on-wiki is no defense at all. First of all, they were blocked for 24 hours for edit warring right after the phone call, and unsurprisingly have not edited further here even after the block expired a few hours ago. If I had been a newbie and the recipient of such a call, I would have run a mile from this place. Since I am not a newbie, I would have contacted the WMF immediately. Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I have no problem with your redactions if the clerks or arbs feel they're appropriate. However, I want to emphasize that the information Beall4 provided in the edit summary was not remotely sufficient to easily find their phone number. It required multiple steps and active research to do so which I had attempted to demonstrate (not wisely in retrospect). Jytdog's framing this as the recipient's fault for providing him with enough information to successfully go sleuthing for a phone number is completely unacceptable, let alone actually phoning the person. Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed to see DGG (and several others) perpetuating the false notion that Beall4 asked for off-wiki contact of any kind [2]. Or even that any reasonable person would infer such a thing. The only comment by Beall4 in this respect was on Jytdog's user talk page "I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD. I have provided 23 references with gives greater depth and understanding... etc. etc." It is blindingly obvious that the editor meant communicating with him directly on his talk page (as they proceeded to do) rather than via edit summaries or at Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet. Jytdog was only able to phone that editor by detailed searching on the internet for a number that editor did not provide. It was listed in a PDF file, the link to which the editor did not provide. Jytdog then concocted a false post hoc justification for cold-calling the editor. "I tried to call the phone number for the "Nutritional Therapy for IBD" given in the NASPGHAN 2018 abstract book that you mentioned in this diff, but it just went to voicemail." The recipient mentioned no such book and no such date in their edit summary (see above). This strongly suggests to me that he knew full well that what he was doing was wrong, and was preemptively trying to cover himself. What Jytdog did to that editor was an egregious invasion of privacy completely contrary to the spirit and principal of Wikipedia's privacy policy as well as intimidation. If the arbitrators decide to suspend this case pending Jytdog's return, OK... I guess. But I am not happy at the way Beall4 was treated and indeed falsely depicted by several people in this arbitration request. In fact, it's quite shameful. Voceditenore (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond here for convenience. I interpret "direct contact" as telephone or in person or email., without specifying which. when used at WP, it implies off-wiki, because for on-wiki there's no need to ask. I'd agree that going directly to in-person is usually not what's intended & is against the general manner of WP interactions. . Whether it means to exclude email depends on the situation. I don't think it excludes it here, tho the argument is by not giving the email it does exclude it. FWIW, I have said from the first that in this situation unless I had been directly told the phone number I would not phone, but I do not think jytdog's interpretation as including phone was altogether unreasonable. I've said more below about what the real issues are, and they are not these details. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

Some bigger issues here.

(As personal context, I receive quite a few personal emails - often abusive - and have literally had green ink handwritten letters arriving at my work about my WP editing, which is largely in the

First, I don't think it's quite right to characterize Jytdog and Beall4 as being "in dispute" in the usual sense. On 18 Nov, Beall4 arrived at

This was reverted both by Jytdog and (after Beall4 re-made their edit) by me, and discussion moved to Jytdog's Talk page where Beall4 opening words[3] were "Hello, I would like to communicate with you directly regarding reverting the update to the SCD" [my bold]. There followed a perfectly cordial one-on-one exchange with Jytdog explaining the relevant

The problems seemed to start when discussion moved to Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet where Beall4 made repeated copy-paste edits from the previously discussion with Jytdog, to the exasperation of Jytdog; Beall4 was also reverted in this by Bradv. This is not so much a content dispute as an attempt by seasoned editors to keep the Talk page in order.

So I take Jytdog's call as an attempt to contact a new editor obviously having basic difficulties operating Wikipedia, in the context of an already-established pattern of one-on-one discussion, rather than furthering a content "dispute". Jytdog says he has phoned new editors a number of times to resolve issues, and in the past this has gone well. I trust this was attempt to do the same again.

If Jytdog is to be sanctioned, presumably it will be for all these previous (successful) contacts too, since some people are arguing that any such contact is ipso facto "harassment"?

In

(I also note the recipient of the call did not complain, but rather the issue was raised by Bilby who really is in dispute with Jytdog – see e.g. here – which all seems a bit rum).

Statement by Guerillero

We are on the ∞th chapter of Jytdog v. Shaky Science, and this chapter feels almost like the last one that I had the displeasure of looking at. Jytdog seems to have missed the point of the last ∞ chapters of this story and will probably see the ban hammer because he has run out of last chances. At the same time, xe is one of the very few Wikipedians willing to enforce

@Voceditenore:, I did try to keep the point of your message (that it wasn't easy) in the text while removing the specifics. Thanks for understanding. Primefac (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

Definitely reeks of poor judgement on the part of Jytdog. Imo, you should never call someone off-wiki without first getting permission to do so, either on wiki or through wiki-email - no one wants to receive a "I'm calling from Wikipedia and your edits suck" phone call! If those routes are not available, and the user is behaving disruptively, then an "indef block and move on" option is the best way out. That said, I don't see the need for a case or any action here. Jytdog acted in good, if misguided, faith and will hopefully not do this again. An indef block was probably over the top but it was, again, in good faith and rightly reduced (and then removed). If we need a policy on off-wiki communication as Montanabw says, then that's something that should be discussed by the community so this isn't the right forum for that anyway. --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tornado chaser

While socking is an indeffable offense on it's own, it is not clear that Jytdog would be socking if he were to create a new account, given that he has abandoned his current one. I encourage ArbCom to at least impose a requirement that, should Jytdog edit under any username or IP, he must identify himself as Jytdog and this case be allowed to proceed. Jytdog is getting a lot of encouragement to come back, and I know from personal experience that the temptation to come back will be there, because I quit WP and blanked my userpage in January after an unpleasant dispute (Ironically this dispute was with Jytdog) but here I am, still editing away! Tornado chaser (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: I don't want to see any admins sanctioned over this, as we don't and shouldn't sanction people for minor good faith mistakes, but sanctioning the people who called for the admins to be sanctioned would also be an example of sanctioning people for minor things, wouldn't it? Also, isn't threatening to get people sanctioned over any disagreement one of the things we didn't like about Jytdog? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax:. fixing ping Tornado chaser (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jusdafax: I strongly disagree with Geogene's rather aggressive comment, but don't see anything I would want him sanctioned for in it. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I didn't count the votes below but I think the arbs are leaning toward accepting the case, which I think is a good thing. There's broad consensus, I believe, that this wasn't outing; there seems to be some consensus that this maybe wasn't harassment, but even if it wasn't by the letter of the policy, this was beyond what should be acceptable. That it was "one click away" doesn't matter--it was a greatly overblown and unacceptable response to a fairly run of the mill situation. Jytdog, I'm sorry, but this was unacceptable behavior, and worse, it falls into a pattern. How this will mark your editorial career here is for ArbCom to decide and I wish them much wisdom: it is not an easy thing to do, throw the book at a longtime editor. Drmies (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

The acceptance of a case by the ArbCom should not mean that sanctions will be imposed. Contrapositively, the ArbCom should not decline to accept a case simply because they may decide not to impose sanctions. This case request raises enough unanswered questions that the ArbCom should accept it. That is especially true because there is clearly past information of a privileged nature that is relevant, since there were two functionary blocks that can be assumed to have been made based on privileged information. (If an Oversighter blocks an editor as an admin, it isn’t an Oversight block. If an Oversighter blocks an editor based on suppressed information, that is privileged.)

I think that the idea of changing the name of a case from that of an editor to the type of conduct that is alleged simply to avoid pre-judging the case is silly. This case is not about off-wiki conduct in general. It is about alleged off-wiki conduct by User:Jytdog. A case should be given an area name if it is about conduct in an area, such as Israel and Palestine, or Alternative and Complementary Medicine, or American politics. A case that is about the alleged conduct of an editor should have the name of the editor. I point to Michael Hardy as an example where the ArbCom correctly named the case after an editor, and did not impose sanctions on the editor.

The ArbCom should accept this case, not because of wrongdoing by Jytdog, but because of allegations of wrongdoing by Jytdog and the likely need to review privileged data.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingsindian

With regard to Jytdog offering to talk with the person over the phone/skype, I can say here that Jytdog offered to do the same with me here during an unrelated case. I did not accept the offer (I prefer email), so we didn't end up actually going through with it. Thus, Jytdog's story seems plausible to me.

I have no comment on any other aspect of the matter. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

My question is what comes next? This cat's kind of out of the bag isn't it? If the matter is no one ever thought to formalize this but we have a consensus here that this is a "WTF moment", then to me it would seem reasonable that upon close that the necessary and appropriate steps are taken to formalize this. While there is alot of focus on what steps to take address what steps to take against Jytdog, shouldn't the Elephant in the room be addressed? To me it would be of a higher importance to do just that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SN54129

I wasn't going to comment, but this cuts to the heart of

• FTR, the above can be considered retracted. I think Jytdog violated policy and that was (initially) handled appropriately with an indef block. My questions about the appropriateness of the actions of some of the editors who are still here are, at this point, off-topic. ArbCom cannot unilaterally amend the
  WP:HARASS wording to explicitly state that unsolicited off-wiki contact is never acceptable (except perhaps in cases of famous people who appear to want private or off-wiki contact regarding the articles on them), so that issue can also be seen as off-topic; I do think both conversations need to be had, the one at ANI or possibly AE and the other at the talkpage of the harassment policy, but that's not for here at this time. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Although I'm working in the field of medicine and healthcare, I have completely given up editing in that area (after a very brief foray) because Jytdog is one of the most frustrating users to deal with, and his vigilantism is often completely misplaced. His idea of "helpful" is stuff like blanket reverts and boilerplate templates. His idea of "helpful" is convincing others that he is absolutely right about everything. I am entirely convinced that if he had found my work information and called me to tell me I violated a tiny part of MEDRS, he would have described his actions as "helpful". He may think he's some sort of self-appointed Wikipedia ambassador but he is not. Jytdog is a bully, and that is all. His repeated pattern of apologising and promising never to repeat his actions is serial abuser territory and for some reason others keep believing him. Julia\^talk 14:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis

Jytdog fucked up. But he's not malicious. There are editors that take our COI policy very seriously and give very little weight to

A comment: the ad hominem “Single Purpose Account” has been used here. I’d suggest that many, perhaps most, wikipedians make many of their first few edits to an area they are familiar with, and its entirely possible this fellow would have made edits in other areas if he hadn’t (IMO, of course) been run off. Describing him as an SPA is poisoning the well. Qwirkle (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smeat75

Ivanvector says above Jenhawk777 contacted me asking to be interaction banned from Jytdog...I determined that she was in a dispute with Jytdog over some articles on historicity of the Bible...whether this is another case of Jytdog hounding an editor inappropriately or just content disputes in the course of editing a topic in common I really don't know. As someone who was involved in a lot of discussions with both of these editors on the articles concerned, I feel I should say that no, Jytdog did not "hound" Jenhawk. Jenhawk was concentrating on controversial articles (The Bible and violence, Christianity and violence,Women in the Bible, for instance) and Jytdog was trying to keep these articles neutral, properly sourced and encyclopedic. Jenhawk eventually found a way to work with Jytdog but has withdrawn from the project for other reasons. I just point this out so that is not counted as another "black mark"against Jytdog, it would not be deserved.Smeat75 (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog says above " about the Jenhawk thing", about Jenhawk's statement where she said she was leaving. I saw that as a reaction mostly to me. I can see why Jytdog would think that, but it isn't what Jenhawk said in her own words in a post about why she was leaving WP on a talk page of a wikifriend[15]recently I ran into virulence involving misogyny that was so apparent and so blatant it just blew me away. The argument was over how women were treated in the past and my--validly sourced--work on two different articles. His response was to jump on me for being Christian even though Christianity was nowhere in the subject matter. She means me, not Jytdog, and she is talking about comments I made on the talk page of Women in the Bible.I did not "jump on her for being Christian" or make "virulently misogynistic" remarks,ridiculous, anyone can see what I said. Jenhawk goes on to say Then in the same week, another guy who I thought was my friend, told me he was cutting me off for a week as discipline for not obeying him by mentioning a subject he didn't want to talk about. She is referring there to an editor I will not name as I know he doesn't want to be involved, whose talk page she went to over and over to complain about Jytdog. He told her repeatedly, for more than a year, that he was happy to help her or continue their collaboration, as they had worked together on various articles, but he didn't want her coming to his talk page to comment about Jytdog any more. She continued to do so however so he asked her not to post on his talk page again. Her own words do not mention Jytdog as a reason for leaving.Smeat75 (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Tornheim

Enough is enough. How much time do we have to spend dealing with Jytdog's endless shenanigans? Consider the hours of editor time spent dealing with noticeboard incidents where Jytdog was a party. The repeated warnings and his promises not to repeat untoward behavior have had no effect. Katie's comment is spot on: Jytdog seems to do something, he finds out it's not okay, he promises not to do "that" again, and then he finds something even more egregious to do. It will not take a full ArbCom case to figure out the obvious; however, I would support a full case to investigate claims this is an eighth offense.[16]

Indeed Jytdog admitted to calling twice (both times without permission) while I was writing the above. And then admitted to "departing from the facts" to defend his unacceptable behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with Coretheapple's statement: Suspending the case is not the way to go. Memories fade. We should not let Jytdog decide if or when the case is to proceed. He asked for a ban. Let's save everyone's time and give him that ban rather than having to risk revisiting this on Jytdog's watch. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: ... assuming Jytdog scrambled the password as he stated, the effect of blocking would be mostly symbolic. Why should he be trusted when he admitted to misrepresenting material facts in this very proceeding? --David Tornheim (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in full with Jusdafax's comment, particularly supporting a commendation from ArbCom to There'sNoTime for making the right call and having the courage to take this case here, especially in light of the expected strong push back by Jytdog's powerful supporters and enablers.

In a community that strongly values transparency, I believe we are entitled to more information about the nature of the private email that has caused at least two Arbs to change their votes to from no block to block ([18][19]). I am no fan of secret proceedings, and the accused has a right to be aware of evidence used against him and the opportunity to refute it and the opportunity to impeach any witness, since it clearly has a material affect on the outcome of this case. I do understand that Arbs must protect confidential information, but I also believe the Arbs have a duty to report on the nature of decisions made in camera to the fullest extent possible without jeopardizing necessary confidentiality.

--David Tornheim (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Howcheng

Lord knows I hate getting involved in arbitration stuff, but it's starting to look like a lynch mob in here. My proposal is that ArbCom decline this case. Neither TNT nor BD2412 appear to have done anything wrong, and Jytdog appears chastened enough. My feeling is that his big mistake was to not obtain specific consent for calling beforehand as it appears that Beall4 did in fact want to speak with someone in person about the whole situation. For future reference in case there's a similar situation where Jytdog is involved with a newbie who is having on-wiki trouble, it would be best to leave a note saying, "I'd be more than happy to contact you on the phone about this, if you would care to give me your contact info via email" or something similar. Since we are now status quo ante bellum, let's agree not to beat this horse any deader. —