Misplaced Pages

User talk:Jytdog: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:15, 16 February 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Jytdog/Archive 9) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024 edit undoBilby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators40,196 edits rv - let's let things beTag: Manual revert 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{banned user|by=the ]|link=]}}
{{editnotice
| header = Hi, welcome to my talk page!
| headerstyle = font-size: 150%; color: #9900FF; font-family: 'Copperplate Gothic Light'
| text =
*'''If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page.''' That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find.
*'''Please''' <span class="plainlinks"></span> '''to leave a new message'''.}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 9 |counter = 29
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Jytdog/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |index= /Archive index |bot= MiszaBot |age= 21 |collapsible=yes}} {{Archives |auto= short|search= yes |bot= MiszaBot |age=30 |collapsible=yes}}
]


== That's all folks ==
'''Welcome!'''
<!-- ] 23:17, 30 November 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859239047}}
So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.


The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.
Hello, Jytdog, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
*]
*]
*] and ]
*] (using the ] if you wish)
*]
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> --] (]) 18:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.
==]==


I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.
The claim still lacks empirical support and should be removed. Adding in Hawking certainly makes sense, the only thing you can say that has empirical support about ice buckets is that it exploded on social media in summer 2014, SOUGHT to increase awareness of the disease, and resulted in record contributions to ALS research. If you want to say that go for it, but the claim that currently exists at the top neither belongs nor has support. This was not something that nobody knew about until people started dropping buckets of ice on their heads, and the way this is currently written is insulting. Furthermore, it takes at least 2 for an edit war. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Thanks for talking, but please discuss on the article Talk page. i just got into a stupid argument because i forgot i had responded to someone here instead of on the article Talk page. You can just copy your comment above, there. Thanks! ] (]) 02:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.
== Comment at the mediation page ==


It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.
Believe me, I can understand how you feel. It's constantly exasperating. But I don't think that what he said to you was really a criticism of you. And the way that you said you were leaving the mediation looks really, really bad. Please sleep on it, and reconsider. I don't want to be all alone there. And you cannot be confident that even what I said was an emerging consensus will hold. You will likely want to keep an eye on that discussion. Leave it, and you let the people who disagree with you win. --] (]) 02:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:I don't want to bail on you. The quotes around "definition" were sarcastic. There is no other reason to put them there. You know all that drama about "male" editing ruining WP? The underlying issues are real and by now I am sick of it. (the drama was childish, but the underlying issues are real). It is starting to ] me. But for you I will strike what I wrote and try to stay in it. I am sorry to you, for having lost self-control. ] (]) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::Thank you very much, and I am very relieved that you are going to stick with it. I ''really'' appreciate it. And I want you to understand that I agree with you about much of it being disgusting. Some of what is going on there is some of the nastiest and most dishonest stuff I've seen at Misplaced Pages, and I suspect that it will ultimately end badly for some users. Then again, one has to expect a certain amount of that at a page where that is the subject matter. But ultimately, this place is only a website, and it isn't worth it to let some anonymous person get in the way of the more pleasurable aspects of this hobby. It's important not to take this stuff personally. --] (]) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::Glad to see you back! --] (]) 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, '''it is not me.''' (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.
Now that I'm guilty of pulling you back into it, I see that you have been repeatedly getting aggravated by those other editors. Please understand, I agree with you. You are not wrong about it. But I'm pretty sure that all of this mess is eventually going to find its way to ArbCom. Therefore, you don't want to have too much of a track record of having made comments that you either had to subsequently strike out, or that can be read as reflecting anger at those other editors. Every time that something strikes you as bad faith – and I fully agree that there's a lot of that – please resist the urge to reply right away. Step back from it for a brief while, and reply when you are ready to take the posture of being unruffled and above it all. Assume that everything where you hit the "save" button is going to come under scrutiny, because I expect that it will, and in a very serious way. You don't need to change the minds of people whose minds cannot be changed, but you do need to appear to neutral third parties, who will later look at everything, to be someone who was always trying to be accommodating and cheerful. A technique I find useful: You can be earnestly "amazed" that someone would think that you meant something, but you don't want to be angry that they would think it. --] (]) 20:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
:OK, thanks. I imagine where this will end up is a series of RfCs. But I totally hear what you are saying. Nose clean. ] (]) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
::Good, thanks. Normally, I like content RfCs. But here, RfCs won't really achieve a lasting consensus, because they will attract editors who respond on gut reactions instead of based on a careful consideration of the source material. --] (]) 15:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
:::It is bloody hard to ] when all semblance of GF has been flushed down the toilet by a non GF editor. There are loads of them working diligently to promote their pet subject, and many are protected by pet admins too. I actually haven't looked at the subject of the dispute you are talking about, but Jytdog understands where I'm coming from, ''and has far more patience than I.'' I suppose my question is - "What do you do when good faith is no longer possible, when editors have shattered the boundaries of good faith? -] (]) 18:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
::::That's a very valid question, and I'll tell you my personal answer to it. In the situation where Jytdog and I find ourselves, I am already past the point of AGFing, in my own mind, about those other two editors. (Strictly speaking, more so for one than for the other. I think one of them is an out-and-out POV-pusher, whereas the other is a sincere but misguided person who insists on strict readings of certain guidelines beyond all common sense.) But there are really two dimensions to this, and the difference between them matters a lot. It's one thing for me to ''think'' those things. But it's another altogether to ''say it'' out loud. Nothing in Misplaced Pages's expectations and norms restricts what editors can or should think. But it matters how we communicate with one another. We can be judged by that, and it's appropriate that this is so. The reason I've been getting in Jytdog's face about it, is that I've seen in the past how bad-faith editors can goad good-faith editors into saying things that get the good-faith editors in trouble, sometimes deep trouble, as in getting banned. In fact, that's part of the Bad-Faith Editing Handbook<sup>TM</sup>. Jytdog is a good-faith editor, and I'm trying to prevent him from falling prey to that scheme. --] (]) 19:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


I just want to say '''thanks''' to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. ] (]) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
==Jobs in Dubai==
Thanks. I was delaying that until after Johnmoor's problems were addressed. --] (]) 19:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


:Dammit man. -] ] 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
More importantly, thanks for addressing Johnmoor's behavior and editing. --] (]) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:you are welcome. i care about COI in WP a lot. ] (]) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC) ::That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --] (]) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. ] (]) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project &ndash; and your obvious love of and value to it &ndash; should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --] (]) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Sad to see this. Best wishes,] (]) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::+1 to what Zefr said. ] (]) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::::Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Misplaced Pages would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- '']'' <small>] ]</small> 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)
:::::::And another +1 here.--] (]) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
{{u|Jytdog}} The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
*I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of ] that Misplaced Pages employs (see ]). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,], and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. ] (]) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.


::That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by ] policy. The ''most'' that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Misplaced Pages editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. ] (]) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
== COI/paid editing warning ==
:::Just fyi, they ''do'' have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --] (]) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You gave me a COI/paid editing warning earlier this morning. I understand the conflict of interest policies and have not written any articles in over 6 months. I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping Misplaced Pages unbiased but I'm wondering why exactly you decided to issue such a warning given my lack of posting and editing. No article I have ever written in reference to my work has ever been published. I appreciate the information, I'm just confused as to why I'm receiving it now out of the blue from an editor I've never spoken to. ] (]) 17:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::::Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban ''unless'' a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the ] has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. ] (]) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:Articles that you worked on recently came to my attention. The matter of timing is really not important. It appears that you worked on a bunch of articles related to Integris. If you did that work for pay, you should disclose that per the terms of use, as described here ] and in the notice I left on your Talk page. Good luck! ] (]) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --] (]) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. ] (]) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which ''did'' work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of ] before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. ] (]) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


*Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. ] (] · ] · ]) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
== Just wondering . . . ==
Why you reverted my edits to ]? Usually it is good etiquitte to put a note of explanation on the editor's talk page. ] (]) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) * I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. ] (]) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. ] (]) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:it appeared to be vandalism. Medtronic is not a plc. ] (]) 19:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Misplaced Pages would be worse off without you. - ] ] 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
::Actually, as of today (and as a result of its reverse merger with ], Medtronic IS a plc. Go to Medtronic's homepage and at the bottom you will see "© 2015 Medtronic plc" Could you please self-revert your reversion? Thanks, ] (]) 19:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
* I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Misplaced Pages jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. ] (]) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
:::done. its good to present sources for that sort of change - I did that. ] (]) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --] (]) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
*🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Misplaced Pages either. ] &#124; ] 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
* It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! ] (]) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
* We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --] (]) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*''']'''--] (]) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. ] (]) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. ] (]) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// ] (]) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* ] and ] are not always true, and I've been considering creating a ] counter essay. You do so much for Misplaced Pages that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. ] (]) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
**] I have been thinking the same thing. Our core community is irreplaceable. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. ] (]) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. ] is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Misplaced Pages at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. ] (] <nowiki>&#124;</nowiki> ]) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. ] ] 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. ] (]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
::<small>Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. ] (]) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)</small>
*I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. ] (]) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- ] (]) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.]<sup>]</sup> 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.] <small>]</small> 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. ]] 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. ] (]) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
* You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — ]&nbsp;] 00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. ] (]) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. ] (]) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. ] (]) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --] (]) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. ] (]) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* :( &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! ] (]) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at ] and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the ] some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately and ), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Misplaced Pages will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! ''''']''''' (]) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. ] (]) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –]<sup>]</sup> 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
*Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my ]; the work you put into improving ] made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- ]<sup>]</sup> 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
* In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the ] bar on Misplaced Pages, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. ] | (] - ]) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Well, Misplaced Pages just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. ]&nbsp;(]) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. ''']''' (]) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I have created and added myself to the category, ]. ] (]) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - ] (]) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
*Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. ] (]) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
*Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--]&nbsp;|&nbsp;] 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
*I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Misplaced Pages, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, ] (]) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
*Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — ] (]) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
*I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at ]. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. ]] 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
*We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -] (]) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
*If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are ] (]) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
*Oh my lord. I just started editing Misplaced Pages and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. ] (]) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


*Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. ] <sub>]</sub> 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
== Fine-tuned Universe ==


* In my opinion it's disastrous to see you go. You are/were a breath of fresh air in Misplaced Pages.] (]) 10:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog,
You recently reverted an edit on "]" based on the reason, "]".


* (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with ] above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.
If so, then why is the following text allowed in the page? It also cites the very same original research used by the edit you reverted.
:I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; .) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --] <small>(] • ] &#124; ] • ])</small> 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


* I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--] (]) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
:"Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist."


*Wait, what? Apparently I somehow managed to miss all of this. Sorry to see you go, Jytdog. It will be strange to not see you around the place. --] (]) 22:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The edit that you reverted was only adding more clarifying information to the above text using the same cited source. Therefore, the edit should be accepted.
] (]) 23:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
:I'd be happy to respond on the article Talk page - would you please post the question there? (it is hard to keep track of things when they don't happen in one place) Thanks! ] (]) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


* I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Misplaced Pages one day. I wish you all the best with life. ] (] - ]) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
::Ok, I have posted the question on the article talk page. Thank you.
::] (]) 23:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


==ANI comment== == Block ==
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863718}}
{{Arbcomblock}}
You can see the relevant motion ]. -- ] <small>]</small> 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


*I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of {{U|DGG}} and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. ] (]) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
I had moved your comment a bit down to the section which was started by Indoscope, as Lost River was the article that effected him most. Lost river is a different subject where there is agreement not to include anything that is not mentioning or reviewing the book, however, one of the user is not satisfied with it because he believes that the content of the book promotes fringe. ] (]) 15:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
*I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. ] ] ] 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --] (]) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
*I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. ] (]) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
*] I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. ] (] · ] · ]) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
**{{re|Doc James}} Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. ] (]) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*** I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — ]&nbsp;] 13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
*I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from ], ], ], and ]. {{U|Tryptofish}} has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? ] (]) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
**I hadn't thought of that, sorry. I thought it was just perma-keeping the block notice. I have no objection to restoring the template. --] (]) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
**I put it back. --] (]) 01:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
***Thanks, Uncle Fishy. Not only does the thread preserve the well wishes, it also alerts the unsuspecting that there's no point in posting new queries or complaints on this talkpage, and thus saves watchers a lot of time and explanations. It's perhaps not ideal in some people's minds to have the "Block" thread here, but Jytdog wanted to leave in a rather drastic fashion anyway, and there are other more genially titled threads that will be retained as well. ] (]) 02:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
****{{(:}} --] (]) 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
*As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —]] – 06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


== ] closed ==
:Also I would have no problem if you completely remove your comment, because we are trying to focus on content without getting into ANI comment which will likely cause trouble or still remain unhelpful at this situation. ] (]) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
::you did not have my permission to move my comment. and no i will not take it down. 16:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:


#{{user|Jytdog}} is indefinitely ] from the English Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
== My thoughts about the edits in the OCD Wiki ==


For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi bro, I made some edits in the OCD wiki. If you are not satisfied with my edit, you are free to re-edit it. :) But please just see what i scribbled in the Talk page of OCD wiki. :)
: Discuss this at: ''']'''<!-- ] (]) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->


==Carrying on==
Thanks,
<!-- ] 04:48, 8 December 2028 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1859863695}}
I shall be checking this talk page every day or two, and shall try to respond to problems raised. I can not however keep track of other edits to pages that jytdog may have been watching, but if help is needed on any, let me know either here on on my own talk page. I can only try to help deal with the problems that my role should have been to prevent. But a committee is a committee, and WP is a place where none of us can expect to always have things as we would like them. ''']''' (]) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to ] and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --] (]) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
:: is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --] (]) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
::: Generally I use ] when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? ] (]) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
::::Preferring ] for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to ] or ], and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --] (]) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
::::: But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. ] (]) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
::::::I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --] (]) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
] qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to ]. ] (]) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
:Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of ''The Signpost''. ] (]) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


== Jytdog should consider returning back ==
] (]) 23:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
<!-- ] 06:36, 5 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1867387001}}
]]</span>'']]
I just wanted to state that Misplaced Pages community is not the same without Jytdog and he is being missed. If real life permits, Jytdog should consider return back to editing.
*'''Please come back'''<s>Support</s> as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
*What is this? You can't ''vote'' someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. ] (]) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
::This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''Hoping he'll come back'''. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --] (]) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
**Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. ] (] · ] · ]) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --] (]) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
****If a super majority feels that arbcom has over reached, IMO we could technically over ride arbcom. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***** <nowiki></nowiki> -- ] &#124; ] 23:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
***{{ping|Doc James}} I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Misplaced Pages editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor ''in real life''. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. ] <small>(])</small> 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
****People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*****Actually, I don't think that the community ''can'' overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --] (]) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
******Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. ] (] · ] · ]) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*****Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - ] (]) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
******There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. ] (]) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*******I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - ] (]) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*****{{tq|...Jytdog messed up in this case.}} And in the previous cases. ~ <span style="color:#DF00A0">Amory</span><small style="color:#555"> ''(] • ] • ])''</small> 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
*Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. ] (]) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
*I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ] ] 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
*What Swarm says. ]]
* ] . We miss you, come back. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier ''and'' in accordance to Misplaced Pages rules. -] (]) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
*I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. ] (]) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
*Hmm so he did and ] the ]. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —]] – 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
*It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -] ] 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
*Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{tl|information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
*: Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;]]</span> 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


== Jytdog's good work noted in the media ==
== Help please ==
<!-- ] 10:09, 12 March 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1868004554}}
I miss Jytdog, COI editing's one of my personal bugbears here & he's one of several editors who've helped me deal with the issues. He gets a nice mention in this HuffPo article on corporate spindoctors using questionable tactics to push POV and promo material & frustrate good editing https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. He did some stuff wrong, but it's a shame to see someone who did so much to keep this place reliable not be here any longer. ] (]) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
:] good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


:Thanks for sharing. ] (]) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I know that you have done a lot of splitting articles and I'm wondering if you would be willing to split the HIV section from the ] article. I've been trying to get someone to do it for years. Let me know. ] (]) 04:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hi, I had a quick look. Is the issue that article is too long and you would like to compact it? If so, I took a look at that section and it looks like to could be condensed a lot. The WHO subsection, for example, talks a lot about an outdated study and repeats things from the 2010 report. If you like I can work it over and we can see how it looks then. If you would just like me to split it out and do no more I could do that too. ] (]) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
::Well, take a look at it. I've actually done that more than once in the past and the more I read the more tricky it got to be... If you can figure out a way to do it, great. I guess that my idea to move it was really a way to sweep it under the carpet because I'd guess that it is mostly related to African women and not the general reader of our breastfeeding article. So as you read it again, keep in mind that as a separate article it could go more into of the problems that their first advise caused. Maybe...it's been a long time since I read it close enough to really absorb what it was saying, but from memory that is what I remember. This would be a perfect student article and I've suggested it (rather than their usual well meant but often rather lame intents to add to present articles...). Let me know what you think - if you take a serious interest I will read it all again and we can discuss.
::PS: Yes, the length is just awful... ] (]) 15:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I see that you are quite busy with other articles and have decided to pester Waid instead. :) ] (]) 04:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


:I put this article on ] and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. ] (]) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
== Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial ==


::There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. ] (]) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Too bad rather than just removing what I posted which is widespread criticism of the study, you didn't look for better sources. Just because it didn't meet some technicality, not having the information on there is not beneficial for society. I may try to look more later to see what I can find, but I wish you and others who revert things would try to help contribute to the community in that way.
] (]) 16:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

== February 2015 ==
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]&#32; according to the reverts you have made on ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
Please be particularly aware that ] states:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, '''breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]'''.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-ew --> – ] (]) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

==FYI==
It's generally expected that you first discuss the outcome with the closer on their user talk before taking it to AN (I'd imagine you could still self-revert at this point). I think it also leads to better chances of an overturn, since any issues with the close will be clearer and editors will see that you've already tried to get a resolution. :-) ''''']''''' ''<font size="1.8">(])</font>'' 23:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
:thanks, will unwind and try that first. thank you for reaching out! ] (]) 23:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

== Edit implementing close at Griffin article ==

I was unaware that the "yes" voters were in the majority, because the situation seemed rather evenly balanced, and I didn't count votes. As I noted somewhere (in the close?), the strong point of the "no" was its clear point that "conspiracy theorist", as generally used in contemporary English, is a fundamentally non-neutral way of describing someone. If it's not neutral to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence, it's likewise not neutral to call his ideas conspiracy theories. Let me be clear: the core policy is neutrality, and your words make me think that you're attempting to wikilawyer in order to undermine that core policy and make him look bad. You can disagree with him fiercely (believe me, if I were writing a blog about this kind of person, you'd quickly see my disagreement), but drop your disagreements at ]. Unless you can convince me that all involved parties (including Griffin) would consider his ideas conspiracy theories, your arguments will not gain traction, because a neutral point of view is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines. ] (]) 00:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

PS; I thought of this as soon as I'd hit "save". Since the beginning, we've held that "the neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree...We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points." Source is , the earliest accessible revision of WP:NPOV. We need to write this guy's article in a way that will be agreed on by his supporters and his opponents; the supporters will agree that the scientific establishment has rejected ideas such as HIV denialism and laetrile for cancer, but I assume that they won't agree that his ideas are conspiracy theories according to the common use of the phrase. ] (]) 00:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:(answering here instead of your Talk page - for those who watch my page, my query is ]) ). Hi Nyytend, thanks for your note. My sense is that you don't deal with the vast amount of pseudoscience that people try to add to Misplaced Pages. ] is the part of NPOV that deals with this kind of stuff, and it is crystal clear - and this is ''the heart'' of the policy, not any kind of wikilawyering - that we call a spade a spade in WP. If something is batshit crazy and mainstream, solid, reliable source, say so, we say so. Netural does not mean "neutered" nor does it mean "not negative." If you are not familiar with this, see Jimbo's quote on "lunatic charlatans". Please. In any case, will you please, please agree to restrict your implementing edit to the actual subject of the RfC - the lead sentence? Thanks. ] (]) 02:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::The heart of the policy is that we present things in a balanced fashion and avoid taking sides in disputes: when people dispute whether an item is a spade or a hoe, it's not neutral to call it a spade: neutrality is saying that the large majority of commentators call it a spade, that the scientific establishment calls it a spade, that those calling it a hoe are definitely in the minority, etc. As I noted already, if it's inappropriate to call the guy a conspiracy theorist in the intro's first sentence, it's also inappropriate to call his ideas conspiracy theories a few sentences later. ] (]) 03:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::{{tps}} Wow, I'd say that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV or is at least a rather perverse personal interpretation of it. Where there's a ''genuine'' dispute (i.e. in RS) sure WP doesn't take sides, but where the dispute is betwen a fringe notion ("Tony Blair is a lizard") and rationality in RS, WP will come straight out and privilege reality without engaging in the ] fallacy. May be an idea to get some input from editors with expertise in this aspect at ]. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 04:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Alexbrn}} please clarify (for all concerned) to whom are you referring as misunderstanding NPOV – Jytdog or Nyttend? Thanks. – ] (]) 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::Nyttend. ] <sup>]|]|]</sup> 06:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::Hi {{u|Nyttend}}. Thanks for replying. I understand your perspective on NPOV, and you are certainly entitled to that. However, we had an RfC and we needed someone to close it. What I have been asking you, is to respect the question that was asked in the RfC, about the first sentence, and limit the implementing implementing edit to the scope of the RfC. You haven't responded to the issue of the scope of the RfC, which is troubling. I am sorry to say this, but it becoming clear to me that in this specific close, you didn't honor the job of closer and instead relied on your POV on the question. The editors working on the page need a close that reflects what folks actually said, and what both PSCI/FRINGE and BLP say. As I am sure you know, the close will have a strong influence on subsequent discussions, and strong and reasonable arguments were made that reflect PSCI more than your close (and perspective) did, and the close of the RfC should at least acknowledge them.

::::::So... on the basis of our further discussion here and on your close, where you have not referred to the RfC nor to the actual discussion raised by the RfC but only to your personal views on the question, I am now asking you to a) recognize that you came to the close with a strong pre-existing POV on the question; b) decide if you can be a neutral judge and make a fair close; c) if you decide you can, to re-close, on the basis of carefully reviewing PSCI and BLP and the RfC discussion with an open mind and reflecting that review in the close; and d) as i've requested before, limit any implementing edit to the first sentence alone. If you reflect and decide your POV on the question is too strong to be a neutral closer, would you please withdraw your close and !vote instead? We are all human and have our perspectives on things, and we all mistakes. I think your close was a mistake. I say that with respect for you. We all make mistakes.

::::::As I have written before, I am open to a close that ends up deciding that the first sentence should not refer to "conspiracy theorist" (the arguments about overkill with respect to the first sentence were very reasonable to me -- and you have not mentioned even those arguments made in the RfC) - I am not opposing the conclusion you drew per se; just the way you got there and your implementing edit. ] (]) 14:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::As I said above,
My personal views on the subject are that he's quite the idiot, and I'd like to say so. My views on the general question are that we need to present all articles in ways with which both supporters and opponents can agree, i.e. a neutral point of view, and this necessarily excludes the use of derogatory language, which (as I already noted) the discussion concluded "conspiracy theorist" to be in this context, and which would definitely include the way I'd like to describe him. ] (]) 15:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Thanks for your reply. You are still asserting your own views on PAG (not on Griffin, but on PAG), instead of acknowledging that was needed was a close of an RfC that took into account what people said in the RfC. I appreciate the discussion but at this point, I will move to have your close reviewed. I'll notify you when I do that. Thanks again. ] (]) 15:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:I have requested review of the close here: ] ] (]) 19:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

== Hello Jytdog ==

Hi Jytdog, I took some time to read your profile and have found an immense respect for you. Thanks again for improving the wiki community. I understand we may have some differences in views over the ANU page I believe this is good for the community. Thanks again mate <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: how kind of you! Thanks. ] (]) 12:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

== ] ==

Hi there. I see that you reverted my recent addition to this article with the edit summary "(remove PROMO)". Did you mean ]? If so, I wonder if you could possibly explain why you think that is the case? Many thanks. ] (]) 10:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::You are referring to this "In February 2015 a trial of the device was announced by the UK's ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/health/world-first-bionic-eyes-blind-8572389|title=World first: Bionic eyes to let blind people in Manchester see again|author=Dean Kirby|date=3 February 2015|work=men|accessdate=3 February 2015}}</ref>" Who cares? Not notable. And yes it looks like an attemp to promote the hospital. ] (] · ] · ]) 11:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
:::I would imagine that many visually-impaired people who live in Manchester, and the North West of England in general, will certainly care. You think the hospital will "benefit" from this in some way? Perhaps you could tell us how many trials of this device have taken place in the UK as a whole up to now? Your assertion that "it's not notable" could then be put into context. Thanks. ] (]) 12:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

::::HI martin - I understand that you were well intentioned. I'll go further than you -- ''if'' this feasibility trial is successful, and ''if'' the subsequent pivotal trial is successful, and ''if'' the company is able get regulatory approval and approval of payors to bring the Argus to market in this indication, it ''could be'' a game changer for millions of people. (see page 10 for a description of how the Manchester trial fits in Second Sight's overall strategy).

::::Generally, we don't discuss specific clinical trials that are ongoing nor the sites where they are occurring; the exceptions that I am aware of, are when there are big trials ongoing that are designed to resolve really big or controversial questions and are therefore discussed in independent secondary sources, in a serious way. The source you brought is a typical news media piece hyping medical news; the news media love "wow" health news and generally overhype the actual work being done and editors often "fall" for that. Per ] we source health content based on secondary sources published in the biomedical literature and statements of major medical & scientific bodies. We do not deal with cutting-edge ] matter that may or may turn out to be important. We cannot know at this time if Argus will work in dry AMD. Overall we aim to communicate reliable information to the public about health matters - we avoid yanking people this way and that with news about research being done that doesn't even have results yet (as in this case) or about provisional results that are not vetted in secondary sources. The news media so often (sadly) do yank people around with the kind of hype found in the source you brought.

::::With regard to Second Sight's feasibility study --only after the results of that trial are published and then those results are discussed in a secondary source per MEDRS - only at that time, should the matter be discussed in WP.

::::I looked at your contribs and you don't seem to edit much in health related matters, but that is how Wikiproject Medicine rolls. If this conservative approach doesn't makes sense to you, please do see ] and ], and please consider reading the lead of an essay I am drafting - if you like please see it - ].

::::But yes, your edit, based on that source and emphasizing the site of the trial, seemed promotional to me, and not in line with how we handle health matters in WP. It did accurately reflect the source - I definitely grant you that - but that is not the kind of source we use for health-related content in WP. Thanks. ] (]) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

:::::We'll just have to wait, then. Thanks for your thoughtful answer. A lot more helpful that just saying "who cares", I think. I'm well aware of ] thanks, and I'd suggest that my editing history (or your evaluation of it) is wholly irrelevant. I'm also still at a loss to see how adding this news item "promotes" the hospital concerned. It's not making any claims about effectiveness, it's just a factual statement about a volunteer trial. If readers go to that article wanting to know "has this device ever been trialled in UK?" - what do they find exactly? Thanks. ] (]) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I note that you have now adjusted your response further. ] (]) 13:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::yes sorry I hadn't noticed your response. it was just a tweak.. in any case, based on what you wrote here I no longer believe that your edit was intended to be promotional of the hospital; sorry about that. You would be surprised (or maybe not) at how often promotional matter is added. I believe you were just trying to reflect the source. I think you see the problems now with the source, which is great. I only brought up your contribs because people who don't often edit health content are often a bit flummoxed by how project med operates... i didn't intend to denigrate you at all. with regard to your question - honestly, with respect to whether any given intervention works or not, the town or country where it was tested is not relevant to understanding if it is safe and effective, nor to getting regulatory approval to sell it (outside of issues that might arise with regard to the population -- regulatory authorities around the world care about race, sex, and age differences, and, for example, won't approve a drug for use in a country where one race is predominant if it was tested in a trial where that race wasn't well represented. So you can't get approval of a drug in china if you only test it in, say, Switzerland.) That is not the case here as far as I can see. Can we just wait until there is significant coverage of the safety and efficacy of Argus in dry AMD in MEDRS sources? It will be several years til we know anything - Second Sight estimates 2019. ] (]) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks for your thoughtful response. I think you understand why I was thrown by your edit summary. ] (]) 13:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} I do indeed, and I apologize again. Thanks for talking. ] (]) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

== Context ==

I think this should be restored. Without context the previous sentence makes little sense. If you agree you can revert my edit. You wanted to discuss it first. So, I reverted my edit for discussion. ] (]) 03:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:Hi QG - we should do this on the article Talk page, if that is OK with you. If so I would be happy to respond there. Thanks for discussing! (I did take the time to track down why you are asking me, and I guess it is b/c of - just recording here so I don't have to do that again) ] (]) 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
::If you not going to by now then I don't think I'm going to change your mind with discussing it on the talk page. ] (]) 03:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
:::as you will! thanks for talking. ] (]) 18:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

== Depression revert ==

Your revert here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Depression_%28mood%29&curid=840273&diff=645754210&oldid=645753821

Maybe a decision on reverting this would have been better left to someone who has first-hand personal experience with the issue described in the edit? :>) ] (]) 15:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
: funny man. :) i feel bad for that guy tho and i have had my share <u>of rejection</u>. ] (]) 15:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC) (clarifying that i wasn't saying something icky] (]) 17:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC))

::That edit is hilarious. I don't mean to make fun of someone's pain, though, if he or others have went through that. ] (]) 15:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I think we just discovered the origins of Gamergate. --] (]) 16:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

== Defender of the Wiki Barnstar ==
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Kudos on you for having infinitely more patience than most. ] (]) 14:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
|}{{z147}}
:thank you sandy! you are an inspiration to me. hang in there! ] (]) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

== Opinion ==

As far as ], I see little hope of ever getting through to this individual. It occurs to me that continuing to engage will do little more than encourage them further with the result being a never-ending talk-page back-and-forth. They've got a point to make and they will do anything to get that point across. What we've already seen with the edit warring tells me what the result will eventually be. If you get my drift. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 18:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:agreed! I am just trying to make my point clearly, and will soon stop responding. Thanks for your note. ] (]) 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin attention will be needed there. But seriously, getting trolled into suggesting an FA be merged away? I can't go back and fix all this editor's edits ... too busy IRL ... but there's a long mess. ] (]) 23:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:hey sandy. well... no. I thought about it, before proposing the merge. folks may well disagree and i will be interested to hear what is said. i am not pushing for the merge, but it seems worth discussing well. ] (]) 23:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
:: But you understand that means defeaturing the FA ]? Eubulides, who wrote that suite, is long gone, and for me to keep up with all the trolls and vandals and POV pushers all these years to try to maintain an FA ... well, fine, if we defeature it, the whole suite will go to heck. And I can have another extended vacation :)) But I'm not sure you realize that what you are proposing is to do away with a featured article. Just checking. They are two separate concepts and articles, so why would we eliminate top content? ] (]) 00:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::I do understand it is FA. really I do. And i understand what went into that. I am just proposing this and it is just a partial merge. With the rise of the notion of ASD in the literature, it is my view (and others may well disagree and i may be dead wrong) that the ASD article should be the lead article in the suite. If folks agree (and only if they do) I am willing to work very closely under and with you to make it surgical so that we do not de-feature it, or so that if someone demands an FA review that we pass easily... ] (]) 00:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::: Check out And see next Sheesh, I had a month of very hard work IRL and came back to this steaming pile of junk.<p>A partial merge, in this case, means we defeature a featured article. I don't see how you can stay comprehensive if you merge things that are about classic autism to the ASD article. If that's the way consensus goes, though, it's no skin off my back ... I just want to make sure you understand the process and what you are proposing. I only watch the autism suite because it was once in great shape, written by a top editor who left, and the suite had two FAs (autism and asperger). If you believe the content is in the wrong article, the article ends up defeatured, and I have one less suite of articles to watch ... which is not a problem for me. They will deteriorate, though ... the rest of the suite shows where they will end up. I'm not yet convinced that content has to be removed from autism, or that ASD can't be better written without gutting autism, but you have better access to new journal articles than I do, and I don't have time for a major rewrite of anything ! Best, ] (]) 01:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::: hm. I try to be aware of how articles relate to one another. from my perspective, to the extent that in the real world, ASD has overtaken Autism as the "hauptgattung" then the articles should change to reflect that, and if FA holds that back, then FA is a bad thing. that's my perspective, generally. but i do hear you that these articles are constantly degraded and the FA status is actually very useful to keep that degradation at bay. i don't want to mess things up for you and make things more unpleasant for you than they are! i will drop this. we want sandy to stay! ] (]) 02:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

::::::: If the article's in the wrong place, so be it! Do the right thing. I just don't have time to write a new article, or watch a crap article, but if you say that content is in the wrong place, I will support defeaturing the FA. <p>Anyway, like we don't have enough to keep us busy (and what takes our time over content writing): ]. Yes, it would be nice if we could just focus on rewriting the autism suite, instead of the usual in here. ] (]) 02:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::::: so, so much time wasted keeping out nonsense! ] (]) 02:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::: Years ago, Colin and I had great plans for fun and interesting articles we were going to write. Now, every time I come to Misplaced Pages, it's to stuff like this that we can't even keep up with. If we were actually doing something valuable in here-- like putting our heads together to rewrite autism-- it would be fun and worthwhile. Instead, we spend our time just trying to keep our heads above water and dealing with complete garbage. I'm not opposed in theory to exploring your idea ... it's just that it's so discouraging to try to maintain any standard of quality in here. You take care there ... I think I'll go renovate another house :) ] (]) 02:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::: collaborating is the best part of working here. tell you what, when and if you feel you have the energy and desire, let me know, and we'll rework the autism articles together. only when you are ready and willing. ] (]) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Collaboration ''is'' the best part, if editors know how to do it and will do it. Another thing that is awesome (and liberating) once you realize it applies to everyone here is ]. Its accompanying essay, ] is another freeing concept. But, when you all decide (if you do decide) to rewrite Autism, might I suggest you get someone who is actually on the spectrum and has a good deal of education and experience in the subject? Just saying. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} thanks for your note, Winkelvi. Any rewrite would involve anybody who wants to join and would be discussed first, of course! Thanks. ] (]) 14:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

== FAR mergers ==
Background FYI:
* ]
* ]
* ] leading to ]
] (]) 02:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

== cochlear implants ==

Hey Jytdog,

Looking for some help with the cochlear implant article. I can see that you are not happy with the changes I tried to make. I did what was initially suggested and removed the primary source and linked to a secondary source. I thought that would be fine but looks like it is not. I think that the optogenetics research is important and it builds upon the research being done at Northwestern University. How would you suggest that the research be referenced here? I'd like to make known that I am not associated in any way with the institution where this research is being done -- my interest is personal because of my own issues with hearing loss. I think it's important that everyone know what is going on in the world of hearing research. Also, if I'm not supposed to be mentioning the institution that is doing the research, why is Northwestern University mentioned in the same paragraph?
Thanks
] (]) 21:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
:thanks for replying on the Talk page. that is where discussion belongs. i'll reply there. ] (]) 01:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== Stop bickering ==

The unhatted thread is exactly about "how we are editing" -- and that is the problem. It is editors commenting about each other, not article content. That is a behavior matter. Also, since " want no part of this. Unwatching." why unhat the thread? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Please revert so that you talk from one side only. Thanks. – ] (]) 01:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:you all are on a very short trip to arbcom. I have done my best to stop you. ] (]) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::While I may be named, I'm confident I'll be okay. The hat was my effort to stop the bickering. Oh, well, maybe indefinite PP is the best course of action. – ] (]) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Srich, as your friend let me remind you that you've had other experienced editors chide you for your "pseudo-admin" style interventions. Regardless of the merits of your concern, it's never a good idea to position yourself that way, especially when you are an involved editor on an article. ]] 01:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

==In retrospect...==

You were probably write about not making substantive edits to Griffin. The environment of that page is toxic. ] (]) 04:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:{{tps}}That's why I stayed out of it as well. A lot not wanting to hear behavior problems and quite a bit of the pot calling the kettle black type behavior there. Arbcom or topic bans are looking more like a reality there, so I think Jytdog made a good choice to withdraw now to let the troublesome editors make their own bed. ] (]) 04:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::It's too late. The damage has been done. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>] 08:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Its a shame one of the most experienced Fringe topic editors we have feels that way, the project will suffer for it. However, I feel the newbie box ticking editors who recently appeared ought to be ashamed. -] (]) 15:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== Griffin AE ==

Hello Jytog. Why withdraw the edit-warring thread concerning Griffin/Atsme? It seems to me that it would be clearer to have that adjudicated on the record. Or are you going to add Atsme to Steeletrap's name for Enforcement in that thread? Thanks. ]] 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I generally find that 3RR threads that I file are acted on swiftly. I have never had one sit that long without being touched by an admin. I reckoned it was because of authority issues, with regard to the DS that were imposed just after i filed it - admins seem very loathe to step on each others' toes...or maybe admins there judged that it was pointless now because of the DS. I don't know. So I noticed Callenac of the 3RR, but callenac also took no action. Then I saw that Callenac had referred Atsme to AE... so I followed suit and took it there. Does that make sense? ] (]) 23:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::I see that Callanac referred Atsme to AE and it appears to me that Atsme may have understood that to be an endorsement of her complaint rather than advice about the proper venue. I would have seen no harm in leaving the 3RR thread up. It's clear cut and the AE is somewhat different. I don't expect to participate in the AE and from what I've seen the most motivated and aggressive editors tend to dominate these AE threads. I don't know what Steeletrap's history is with that article but I do feel that unless the case is explicitly broadened to cover the range of disruption that's occurred over the recent past, the thread is not going to help calm things down. ]] 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:::Callanac is being appropriately sphinx-like. I will ask him. ] (]) 00:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::One thing I have learned from various Arbcom matters is that the Arbs and the Enforcement Admins there are, necessarily, unfamiliar with all the details surrounding incidents and histories of behavior. It takes a huge amount of effort to present a concise clear summary of the issues. Unfortunately, although the Admins there may be quick studies they can also be misled by extraneous or incomplete information. Often the most motivated participants come off sounding convincing simply because others don't wish to invest the time to fully discuss the matter. For example, imagine you are an Admin coming at this cold and trying to figure out what's happening. Remarks about various content disputes, the RfC close, and the like would point you to peripheral issues and divert your attention from the overriding behavioral problem. That's just how these things work, unless a highly motivated editor is prepared to put in the effort to clarify things. I've never edited this article and I just happened by coincidence to see some of the talk page issues and the POV problems. ]] 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
::::::I hear you. Thanks! ] (]) 00:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
:::::::I'll tell you this: I briefly edited the Bitcoin article last year. It was dominated by POV believers who seemed to know nothing beyond what they'd read in promotional outlets. There were bitter fights about calling Bitcoin a "currency" in the lede. I gave up and left. Now a year later there are still POV editors but the article's in much better shape. The lede is pretty good now. One way or the other these things tend to get resolved in the right direction. ]] 00:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

==USC Eye Institute==
I have rewritten the article ] in my sandbox and used it to replace the original article which you objected to and which was indeed speedily deleted. I hope you approve the new version. Having accepted the article at AfC, I felt an obligation to replace it when it was deleted. There is further discussion of the matter on my talk page. ] (]) 13:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
:Thank you for your kind comments and the undeserved barnstar. ] (]) 18:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
::You are welcome! I meant it. I have worked over your draft and in my view it is good to go. some surprising things turned up. ] (]) 18:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:10, 20 April 2024

Hi, welcome to my talk page!
  • If you came here to discuss article content, please post at the article Talk page. That is where discussions about content belong, so that everybody watching the article can participate, and so the discussion becomes part of the page's historical record, and is easy to find.
  • Please click here to leave a new message.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

That's all folks

So... I made a very bad error in judgement, and called a person who had added raw advocacy content to WP, who is clearly deeply passionate about the topic.

The call went very badly. I shouldn't have called them, I shouldn't have allowed it to become an argument, and I shouldn't have ended the call the way I did.

In the past, I violated the OUTING policy by posting off-WP information here. That was also a terrible error in judgement.

I also have generally been pretty aggressive in trying to maintain high quality in our content, and this has caused some people here to dislike and distrust me, and per the last ANI about me, there is weariness in the community with me.

In the current situation, there is rampant speculation about a three minute conversation and about my intentions. There is some fierce debate about the boundaries of the harassment policy. There are a lot of angry people. Probably hours have been spent, that could have been better spent elsewhere actually building the encyclopedia.

It looks like this will become a case, which will mean many more hours. The outcome of that case if pretty foregone, in my view. I see no good reason to put everybody through more of this.

So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.

I just want to say thanks to everybody I have worked with, and I wish you all, and our beautiful project, the best. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dammit man. -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That is not a foregone conclusion. Do as you will, but the case will surely go on anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Very sad to hear it. Like Tryptofish says, Arbcom is not a foregone conclusion, but you should do what you think best. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The frustrations for Arbcom and you are understandable, but the overall mission of the project – and your obvious love of and value to it – should not be hastily dismissed. Give yourself a 2 week break, then re-evaluate... and return with a fresh outlook. --Zefr (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Sad to see this. Best wishes,Smeat75 (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
+1 to what Zefr said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Another +1 here. Nobody is irreplaceable but Misplaced Pages would be much worse off without you, Jytdog. All best wishes to you, whatever you decide to do. -- bonadea contributions talk 3:17 am, 4 December 2018, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC+9)
And another +1 here.--Iztwoz (talk) 10:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog The whole episode is a storm in a teacup. I am sad to see you going dude. The place will be worse without you. Take care mate. scope_creep 18:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I understand your motivations in doing this, but I would encourage you not to burn all the bridges as such. By all means, take a wikibreak as Zefr suggests (even a longer one, if you want), feel free even to sit out the arbcom case, but perhaps reconsider your account abandonment. I can speak from personal experience that it is easy to mess up in pushing the boundaries of best practices at this website. That's part of the design, and pushing out people who are effective in their designs is also a prototypical feature of societies that are run by the kinds of mob rule that Misplaced Pages employs (see ostracism). Taking time away from this website in such scenarios can provide much needed perspective (it has for me, certainly), but I think your general outlook on what is or is not appropriate here with respect to the way we report on various claims and promotions is one that is needed. Crucially,WP:There is no deadline, and it would be great to have you back after some time spent in the wilderness. jps (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll echo this and Zefr at the least Jytdog. I've gone the route you outlined of scrambling password, deleting email, etc. when deciding to quite a particular haunt of the internet. Sometimes it really is better to go cold turkey, but I'd suggest in this case go up to everything but deleting the email until a time later. That still gives you the option to come back after a month or whatever, but I always felt like I had more closure waiting a bit for that final step even in the cases when I really did decide to be done.
That being said, remember that ArbCom does not have the authority to give out a site ban in this particular instance yet as they are still bound by WP:PREVENTATIVE policy. The most that can be done is an indef topic-ban on anything relating to real-life identities of Misplaced Pages editors. Anything beyond that would violate blocking policy in part considering you already made it clear you weren't going to be doing this again (before the initial block). A site-ban/indef-block can't comply with policy yet unless a likelihood for disruption outside the COI/real-life identity area appeared likely or that you violated such a topic ban at a later date. It can only be applied when it's clear an editor is going to have issues no matter the topic they go into. This doesn't need to be the end of the road, but I can understand just wanting to be done with all the drama too. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just fyi, they do have the authority. And they are a lot more likely to pull the trigger if they do it by motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm saying they only have the authority in the situations I outlined above. There's nothing preventative about a site-ban unless a case can be made that staying out of real life identity areas wouldn't be enough to prevent disruption. Basically, one can argue at most the WP:ROPE has been depleted for that area. My opinion is such a topic-ban should be done as while Jytdog does have some troubles in the area for all the good they've done, the mix of community tension with COI, etc. along with a history of pot-stirring by some problematic editors still hounding Jytdog just makes the area a tough fit for Jytdog. The site level is going outside the bounds of policy at this time though. That's as much as I'm going to comment here about that though. My point is that if Jytdog decides to come back after a good break, they still have tons of areas they should be able to edit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
You've just been proven wrong at the case page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm staying out of the general issue, but I'd like to point out that someone saying they will do something is not the same thing as someone actually doing it. Otherwise there arbcom would have little to do, and we as a community will issue few cbans etc. Plenty of people say they will do something, whether or not they actually do so is a different matter. And this isn't simply about sincerity. I'm sure quite a few people who make such promises are sincere when they make the promise, but still fail to uphold it abjectly. Again I'm staying out of the general issue, since I have no idea of the evidence as I haven't looked, and it's unlikely I would ever fully know anyway since some of it is likely to be private so I'm not saying this applies to Jytdog. I'm simply pointing out it's entirely possible a block would have been preventative not simply because Jytdog may have made problems in other areas but because they may have been unable to actually do what they said they would do or were asked to do. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the context I was talking about was that the block was not preventative compared to a topic ban, which did work when it was in effect and should of been reinstated in terms of WP:ROPE before a full site ban. That's all moot now though unless Jytdog decides to come back though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well that ended badly :-( Take care. You did great work well you were here. Hope you will rejoin us one day. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have done plenty of stupid things here too and I really do need you to keep me honest ;-) So get back on the horse! But seriously, please take a well deserved break and reflect. Reiterating Doc James, I hope you will rejoin us. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I consider this a serious loss for the project. I guess I understand why you would want to leave, but I nevertheless hope that you'll reconsider at some time in the future -- even though there will be some hurdles you'd have to get over if the current motion passes. In the meantime, I wish you all the best. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We have had a lot of different interactions, but I believe you made a mistake and it was not malicious, and I think You should rethink this. Misplaced Pages would be worse off without you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine what you're going through, and how bad you must feel. This is a community here, and I know you feel community with a lot of the people, whether you've met them or not, and that will be a further loss. You must feel like crap, and that's understandable. You didn't do the worst thing in the world, and the project still needs you. Decisions made at the peak of emotion aren't always the best ones. You get to decide how to lead your life so the deicsion is yours, but I hope you will take the two-week break or whatever feels right to you, and then revisit the situation. You would be welcomed back. Feels like there's a Jytdog-shaped hole in the Misplaced Pages jigsaw puzzle of a community right now, and there's only one person that can fill it. Enjoy your break, and hope to see you back here. Mathglot (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I've been feeling like I want to say something more, and I've been wavering over exactly what to say, but Mathglot just said it better than I could have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 🙁 Mathglot puts it very well. I don't like to see a Jytdog-shaped hole in Misplaced Pages either. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC).
  • It's sad that your huge passion for the project has resulted in this. Thanks for your tireless efforts in making the project neutral. If it's goodbye here, then enjoy your free time until you find your next passion! SmartSE (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We've had interesting discussions on how to work with people, particularly those with a COI. While some of your approaches have been questionable, I for one have never had any doubts concerning your commitment to ensuring neutrality and quality of content on WP. This is a great loss for the 'pedia. --Blackmane (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Desiderata--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am so sorry to see this. What's done is done, but you may consider making a clean start in a few months, and I hope you would be welcomed. Take care. Jonathunder (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits on the alternative medicine related articles. You should take a break and come back here in the future under a new name. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your positive work is appreciated. best regards, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:You are not irreplaceable and WP:Misplaced Pages does not need you are not always true, and I've been considering creating a WP:You are irreplaceable counter essay. You do so much for Misplaced Pages that others don't do. And even if someone else takes up the mantle, there will be some quality aspects missing because every editor is unique in one way or another. I thank you for all of the work you've done for this site, and for often being there for me. I hope to see your return in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You've made a significant contribution: the quality of our content is much improved across many topics (especially medical) as the result of your hard work. Alexbrn (talk) 07:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I will miss you and your thoughtful thoughts. Misplaced Pages:Why MEDRS? is one of my favourite essays here. You were there for Misplaced Pages at many times when we needed you. May the next chapter of your volunteer life be interesting and happy for you, wherever you may go. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sad to learn of your departure, I thank you for all your contributions, and I wish you the very best going forward. Cullen Let's discuss it 08:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to compose a comment at ArbCom and could not really get past, "Well, fuck." Please know that I have learned a very great deal from working with you, knowledge and skills I will continue to carry forward, as I know many others do as well; in that sense and many more, your impact on the site will be long-lasting. I hope you don't mind my saying, I also really admire you as a person, because over time, I saw how willing you were to reconsider and make real, hard-earned adjustments to your approach. That level of character is not something you see every day. I know this episode must be a painful ending, but I recognize in your choice for how to conclude it what I know you do too--an only-increasing thoughtfulness about how you can best contribute to the project and avoid becoming more disruptive than constructive, even if what that requires in a given moment is hardly the thing I know you'd prefer. I have no doubt you'll find another good use for your talent in the near-term, and if eventually it's your judgment that your return would serve the project, well, I'll look forward to it. I will be wishing you the very, very best in the meantime. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to say, I was edit-conflicted by four other well-wishers trying to post this! You will very much be missed. Innisfree987 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to add myself to the list of people who are grateful for all the good work you've done here and to tell you that you'll be missed. I hope you do come back some day, in some form. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your help over the years. I'm not sure which side of the fence you might fall on so let me just say "Live long and prosper" and "May the Force be with you". -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Awful news. You're one of the few people on this website I hold in extremely high regard.💵Money💵emoji💵 14:01, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Please, don't pull the trigger just yet. By all means give yourself a break if you need it. Do something else for a while. Ignore this place and allow the drama processes to grind through as they will. Then reconsider if you could simply accept some boundaries and then resume making your hugely constructive contributions within those boundaries. This will be a lesser place without you.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just another voice in the crowd. The volume and quality of the work you've done here speaks for itself; you've been inspirational. Plus what Mathglot said. GirthSummit (blether) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The project is weaker, and will quickly become even weaker, without you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You have dedicated a lot of your time to improve the project and made thousands of valuable contributions. But yes, the word "aggressive" that you used above to describe your behaviour is unfortunately consistent with my observations and experience, and as I noticed many complaints at ANI. Your attitude drove me away from wikiediting for months on more than one occassion. You are a very knowledgeable person with amazing breadth of knowledge. I encourage you not to leave the project for good – rather, consider taking an extended wikibreak, and then come back to the project, possibly with a friendlier, more supportive and more tolerant attitude. Best, — kashmīrī  00:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you hear the support. All is voluntary here and the decision is yours. Eschoryii (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your countless valuable contributions and your obvious dedication to improve this project. I can't really comment about the actual issue, but I agree with others' thoughts about a Wikibreak as a possible chance to reflect on stuff. GermanJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all you've done. You have improved the encyclopedia greatly. Your presence will be missed and I join the chorus suggesting a break and return in a while. Best. MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your work and help. I hope you'll be back. Take care. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all the help, guidance, and outright inspiration you have offered us Jytdog. I wish you the best in your future endeavors, whatever they may be. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Doc James and Mathglot summed it up. Unfortunate that things turned out this way. Thank you for your contributions to the project. You have stated that you plan never to return, so I wish you the best in your future endeavors. --TheSandDoctor 16:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • :( – Joe (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether you'll (ever) see this but thanks for helping me over the last few year improving and updating many of the articles covering pharm and biotechs, it's been great to work with you, whenever our paths crossed. Like the tribute wall above, you'll be missed and I hope that there are editors out there who can take up your torch in ensuring that the quality of WP does not degrade and become filled with promotional bluster! I wish you the best outside of this project and hope one day you will somehow be able to return! XyZAn (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I obviously played a pretty significant part in this per my comments at WT:HA and the case request, but for what it's worth I'm sad to see this result. I was expecting that if this proceeded to a full Arbcom case that cooler heads would prevail, and that in light of your significant contributions to the project and with everything on the table, a reasonable solution (sanction, probably) could have been crafted which would have still allowed you to be part of this community. It seems that's not to be. Outside of the noticeboards I think our only significant interaction was in working on changes to the banning policy some years ago clarifying the scope of community ban discussions (approximately here and here), which I have always appreciated as one of the most rational and constructive discussions I have ever been involved with in almost a decade here even though we did not initially agree. I very rarely write notes to departing editors, but I share the view that regardless of this recent incident, Misplaced Pages will certainly be worse for your absence. Of course this project is voluntary, it wears down the best of us at times, and we must all do what is right for ourselves in the end. Whatever you decide, take care and best wishes. Ivanvector (/Edits) 20:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I am sad to see things turned out this way for you, maybe, one day, you'll be back! Enjoy your retirement! Polyamorph (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a prolific pedian by any stretch but I have always appreciated your stalwart work regarding keeping bullshit off of here. You were a dam against the never ending tide of anti-science filth that tried to infect our medical articles and I'm afraid that they will now be worse without you. It's a shame that Arbcom didn't avoid getting sucked up with the lynch mob. Be well. Valeince (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all of your contributions here, Although we've never interacted I've always seen you around, Anyway I hope one day you come back but in the meantime take care and I wish you all the best, Take care, –Davey2010 22:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Rather selfishly I will miss your help on my little side project; the work you put into improving this previously unsourced little gem made the whole thing worthwhile. I sincerely hope that your post-wiki world is filled with minimal drama and maximum happiness. Best, -- Jezebel's Ponyo 23:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In looking back on a conversation we had in 2013, I realized that I haven't encountered someone who has been willing to completely engage in such a detailed discussion in a long, long time. As someone who strongly believes in raising the civility bar on Misplaced Pages, I have mixed opinions about the entire situation, but I know you had good intentions and I felt like your tone and approach improved over time. Hope to see you back someday. II | (t - c) 02:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, Misplaced Pages just lost a valuable content contributor and one of its few safeguards against COI POV. The idea that this situation came about as a result of the community's response to a single well-intended but ill-advised phone call is just completely fucking asinine. Anyway, thanks for everything you did here Jytdog. I'm sorry to see you go. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You have done excellent work here in developing our approach to COI--because of the effort you have put into it, we will be able to continue, and I for one, feel a specific need to try to compensate for your absence--especially because I was unable to prevent the arb com result, a I have been in other cases where I arb com proved susceptible to excessive self-reinforcing behavior. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC) -- and see below for what I will try to do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have created and added myself to the category, Category:Wikipedians who wish Jytdog would come back. Benjamin (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just noticed this, having being absent. I'm not wading through the history of the case but my sentiments are similar to those expressed by Bishonen above, who in turn agrees with Mathglot. - Sitush (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Just saw this. No idea if you're still reading, but if so, know that you'll definitely be missed around here. Thank you for your guidance, your empathy, your generosity and your counsel over the years. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the hard high quality work you have done, the vast majority of which will persist for years to come in our articles. You messed up, admitted it in your above post, accepted the outcome, that is good. Take a holiday to a tropical island with bikini clad women walking the beaches and chill out sipping a cocktail. Then find some new project or even hobby - something relaxing, doesn’t have to be academic, fishing even? I note the title of this section is “That’s all folks” - there is usually a sequel to that phrase on TV. I bought pajamas as a Christmas present for my special woman and on the front it has Mickey Mouse saying “Hey folks” and it made me think - that after six to twelve months you should appeal the block and come back and make a post titled “Hey folks”.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've been off-wiki for over a week, and just saw this info. I agree that an indef block and a long time away obviate a lengthy messy ArbCom case, which is probably good, but I feel that your importance to Misplaced Pages, and the numerous people attesting to that, should persuade you to return for an appeal and unblock request after six months to a year. I think the time away may calm down your over-enthusiasm, and allow bygones to be bygones. I'd like to thank you for all of your extensive COI work. Among other things, you were (ironically) the instigating force behind at least two very important and effective ArbCom cases, as well as a number of non-ArbCom cases of very extensive and complex webs of organized COI editing which spanned numerous noticeboards and talkpages. I think it's plain that you are a net positive, and that after time away you can and should return. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Your contributions to handling COI issues have strengthend the project. You should return. Indviduals can be replaced, but dedication and skill take a long time to build. Please come up with a plan to take a role here again. If you feel frustrated with a problem, ask for advice, or, at least, a sounding board. I look forward to seeing your successful appeal in June. — Neonorange (Phil) 07:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I posted some thoughts regarding this issue at special:diff/872116397#Statement_by_bluerasberry. Of course I do not want to see you go. Thanks for what you have done and happy future projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • We haven't always agreed, and at times your manner of interacting with others was highly irritating. But your record of accomplishment and contributions are a monument to your dedication to the project. I tip my hat and wish you fair winds and following seas wherever the ship of life takes you. Farewell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sad to see that such a prolific contributor had to leave. Hope you are reading this and will return back someday--DBigXrayᗙ 20:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • If any efforts are made to bring Jytdog back to the project in any capacity--please ping me as I would support. Personally, I feel like exceptions should be made for exceptional editors. Best wishes to Jytdog wherever you are TeeVeeed (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh my lord. I just started editing Misplaced Pages and you were always there on the articles around me. I knew something was going on, but I didn't understand the depth of it. Jytdog, you will be missed. Thank you for everything you've done and taught me. Dr-Bracket (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry to see you go. We didn't see eye to eye on every issue but I always respected your views and had a high opinion of your work against COI POV pushing. Reyk YO! 08:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (just heard about this) Goddammit man. I'm in complete agreement with jps above, which says something. I sympathize and empathize with your description of what went down. Just want to say what you probably already know, which is that your insights, dedication and honesty have made a big difference around here, and to me specifically. Very few editors would've cared enough to wade through my perseverative walls of text, identify the wheat and chaff, and help sort it. You have a superb eye for both nuance and the big picture, which will continue to benefit the areas you focus on, and -- illegitimi non carborundum -- make them rewarding.
I hope you have fulfilling and fortunate days ahead, and that if you ever want to, you come back exactly when, how and as you choose. (Inspirational verses/vibe: Bob Marley & the Wailers, "Coming In From The Cold"; lyrics.) Happy New Year & IRL-ing. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 10:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I just heard about this now. I feel sad. It was thrilling and rewarding to work with you on the BLP of our favorite errant statistician. You were tough, but also fair. I mourned your topic ban when it occurred, and now this. Happy hunting, in a place of your choice. Your contributions will be missed.--FeralOink (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the statements by Doc James and Mathglot. You have been a valuable contributor during your time here and I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. I hope you come back to Misplaced Pages one day. I wish you all the best with life. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Block

You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal by emailing the Arbitration Committee (direct address: arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).

Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express prior written consent of the Arbitration Committee. Questions about this block should be directed to the Committee's mailing list.

You can see the relevant motion here. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I am very sad to see this. I can only echo the words of DGG and say how much I appreciated your support on the various issues we were working on. Take care of yourself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I know we have disagreed over stuff when we've met, but I've always thought you were absolutely first and foremost here to improve the encyclopedia, and that comes across incredibly strongly in your work. Consequently, I am sad to see this case of affairs. Take care. Ritchie333 14:09, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't believe this. WP will not be the same without you. Even though I am an admin and you are not, you were my go-to person whenever I suspected COI editing. I have been on a 3 month wikibreak myself and only a few days ago decided to come back. Seeing you blocked makes me doubt the wisdom of that decision. The spammers must be popping dozens of bottles of expensive champagne... Please don't scramble completely, leave your email. I sincerely hope to see you back one day. Take care. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I really wish you wouldn't take matters into your own hands liberally and aggressively despite of several people including myself have asked you not to do so in the past, and alienates good and bad COI editors indiscriminately altogether in the name of "helping" them to manage their COI. Perhaps you were too devoted to the project, which is evident by all the messages you received on this page. Come back after a year or so, when ArbCom is filled with more people that actually cares about the purpose and the integrity of the project, rather than self-appointed judges of misguided principles. Alex Shih (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Alex Shih I hope this means we will see you running next year? We are likely going to need a bunch of new folks on arbcom if we wish things to change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Doc James: Unlikely, since for the short amount of time I have been there I have seen too many members along the lines of paid editing is not big deal or everyone including spammers should have the right to enjoy "protection" in order to feel "safe" to "work" here without understanding the purpose of Misplaced Pages and that this is both a project and a encyclopedia. Maybe you should run since people would likely listen to you a bit more as you are more involved with the general movement itself. Alex Shih (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I concur. I was even reprimanded and my edits revdel'ed when I pointed that a WP article on a clinician was created by a PR agency who also developed his website and promoted him on the radio/TV. Still, I was taken to ANI for OUT-ing, with all the bad consequences for me. BTW, the article is still there while I no longer come near any COI issues, even if obvious. So, a change of attitude is long overdue. — kashmīrī  13:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I had posted a hidden Do Not Archive template on this section, since there are several well wishes here, namely from Kudpung, Ritchie333, Randykitty, and Alex Shih. Tryptofish has removed the DNAU template. Do you guys want the template replaced? Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As you probably know, I learned a lot from you, Jytdog (in relation to how to evaluate what is administrator noticeboard worthy or not at first, conflict of interest editing, determining medically reliable sources, some aspects of the pseudoscience related policy, and of what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as other general things by silently watching your busy talk page). I would like to thank you for all that you've done here. I am now aware of the circumstances that lead to your block and sudden retirement. If you eventually are back, this will be good news to me. —PaleoNeonate – 06:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

  1. Jytdog (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Misplaced Pages. He may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog closed

Carrying on

I shall be checking this talk page every day or two, and shall try to respond to problems raised. I can not however keep track of other edits to pages that jytdog may have been watching, but if help is needed on any, let me know either here on on my own talk page. I can only try to help deal with the problems that my role should have been to prevent. But a committee is a committee, and WP is a place where none of us can expect to always have things as we would like them. DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly, Jytdog leaves behind a hole that will be difficult to fill, and it would certainly be good if editors would each try to help wherever they can, even though no one will be able to cover everything. I guess two broad areas are matters related to WP:COI and some areas of biomedical research; he also had an editing interest in the history of religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a useful guide he wrote for new WP users, slanted toward WP:MED, COI, and sourcing-template orientation. How best to preserve it? --Zefr (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Generally I use formaldehyde when I preserve things, but can you explain why this needs to be preserved? Natureium (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Preferring amber for long-term preservation ;>) I see it as a concise guide that might serve some new users as an alternate/supplement to WP:MEDHOW or WP:PSG, and if agreed as useful, should be kept accessible. --Zefr (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
But things don't just disappear around here, it should hang around without any special preservation. Natureium (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess it could be a question of moving it from user space to WP space. Or giving it a good shortcut and linking to it from pages in WP space. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog/How qualifies as a useful essay and should be moved to where we put those. Jonathunder (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes. And for starters, it will be reproduced in the next issue of The Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Jytdog should consider returning back

The knight is sorely missed DBigXrayᗙ

I just wanted to state that Misplaced Pages community is not the same without Jytdog and he is being missed. If real life permits, Jytdog should consider return back to editing.

  • Please come backSupport as I feel his absence has left a huge gap in areas Jytdog helped. No one is infallible, we learn and move on. I am sure you will read this, Hoping to see you back some day. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:18, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What is this? You can't vote someone back to wikipedia when they've left by choice. If Jytdog wishes to return, he knows what he needs to do. Natureium (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a "Vote him back", just a show of support for his work and a 'non binding', wish from a fellow editor that he should "consider" returning back. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Hoping he'll come back. Ok, so this is not a !vote and "support" or "oppose" is not appropriate. But I for one sincerely hope that Jytdog will reconsider and come back. If this account has indeed be scrambled, then under a new account. Jytdog is sorely missed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Him returning would require us dealing with the arbcom motion. The details of the case that resulted in arbcom action are more or less public: Jytdog inappropriately contacted an editor by phone and for that he needs to be significantly warned. Do we the community feel it deserves an indefinite ban? That would require further discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • For what little it is worth, any return would involve a private discussion between him and ArbCom, but the rest of the community would not be involved in that. That's how the process works. I do hope to see him back eventually, but it's not my decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Doc James: I get where you are coming from, but please consider the effect your words have on the people who are victims of harassment. Here's a member of the board that oversees the organization charged with protecting Misplaced Pages editors from online and offline harassment seemingly downplaying or excusing an editor who harassed another editor in real life. The last idiot who cold-called me to harass me had a chat with a police sergeant, but not everyone is going to have a friendly police sergeant on hand to take their complaint seriously. They likely will have only the Foundation to turn to, and your responsibility is to all the editors served by the foundation, not just Jytdog. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
        • People mess up. And we all agree that Jytdog messed up in this case. The question is more about what is an appropriate punishment for someone who has done this, admits it was wrong, and agrees to never do it again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Actually, I don't think that the community can overrule ArbCom, nor should we. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Sure and I imagine that would be the position of many. I am not saying it is likely that a community discussion would result in a super majority for a lessor punishment or that their is much if any chance of a return of Jytdog even if the ban was lifted. So this is likely all just academic and a mute point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Ignoring whether or not the community can override ArbCom, Jytdog has not been punished for harassment. The indef block is to ensure that Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case, as we don't want a situation where editors can temporarily retire during a case and then return later to avoid facing it. No decision of punishment has been made by ArbCom in relation to the specific case. If the indef was removed, Jytdog would still need to go through ArbCom, who may or may not impose a ban and/or block. - Bilby (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
            • There was no stipulation in the block report that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case". Only that an ArbCom case was accepted, but since Jytdog had retired and presumably scrambled his password, he was blocked indefinitely and he can only be unlocked by going directly to ArbCom. Stating that "Jytdog cannot resume editing without going through an ArbCom case" -- in other words, a full ArbCom case, is inferring facts not in evidence. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
              • I guess you can interpret it as you see fit. Fundamentally, a case was accepted and was agreed to be opened, but couldn't continue because Jytdog chose to retire rather than be involved in it. Therefore the account was indef blocked, the case was unable to be opened "at this time", and they can't continue to edit unless they get permission from ArbCom. As there is an accepted case, the "at this time" was specifically added to address the possibility of reopening the case if - as Opabinia regalis put it - Jytdog chooses to "stop and face the music". They could agree to resolve the issue by a motion, privately or otherwise, without opening the case, or they could open it, or whatever, but hopefully this just remains moot and we don't have to worry about it. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
          • ...Jytdog messed up in this case. And in the two and seven previous cases. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Jytdog may appeal his block by contacting ArbCom. That is not up for debate. What happens after that is as-yet unknown, neither set in stone nor explicitly laid out by ArbCom. There's no point in trying to parse unknowns, even the unknowns about whether Jytdog could regain access to this account or whether the password is forever blocked. What we can do is offer our support re: wishing for his return. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I wish you would come back. You were too valuable and too dedicated to be lost over something petty like this, and the whole thing was a massive overreaction. I hope that you will reconsider your exile, and that Arbcom will, at this point, quickly resolve your case with minimal damage imposed. All the best, ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What Swarm says. ∯WBG
  • If— . We miss you, come back. Widefox; talk 11:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The best way IMVHO would be for Jytdog to ask for ArbCom's continuation of the case that was opened (and then closed after Jytdog's voluntary departure). It would make re-entry quite easier and in accordance to Misplaced Pages rules. -The Gnome (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I for one hope to see a return given recent events even though many editors familiar with your good work are distracted by other ongoings, but we'll have to see how ArbCom reacts to the current case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hmm so he did and accepted the decision. Thanks for everyone's time and maybe there's a possibility in another 12 months... —PaleoNeonate – 09:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It makes me angry when I see this, and note the number of tossers who edit this project. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't someone just dig up his phone number, call him up, and ask him if he wants to come back? (Just kidding of course!) I miss Jytdog, too. Pretty much all of our WP:MEDRS watchdogs have necessarily had a lot of bark (and unnecessarily some bite). Hopefully the attrition rate will not worsen (I'm thinking also of a couple of T-bans). Just re-reading Jytdog's user-page essay on COI and related matters is a pleasure (in a WP policy-wonk way, anyhow). He really got it, and a version of that material should be edited down to an {{information page}} or other advice piece, both on how to avoid COI (especially in STEM, GLAM, etc.), and on how to detect it and help others avoid it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
    Jyt, dog! Missing your consideration and spirit today in particular. I just ran across your thoughtful contribution to a discussion elsewhere and wanted to consult you, and remembered this was just the commemorative-tea-cozy version of a talk page now. Hoping you're very well indeed. – SJ + 00:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jytdog's good work noted in the media

I miss Jytdog, COI editing's one of my personal bugbears here & he's one of several editors who've helped me deal with the issues. He gets a nice mention in this HuffPo article on corporate spindoctors using questionable tactics to push POV and promo material & frustrate good editing https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225. He did some stuff wrong, but it's a shame to see someone who did so much to keep this place reliable not be here any longer. JamesG5 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

JamesG5 good share. Worthy appreciation of good work. Hope Jytdog also notices this.--DBigXrayᗙ 06:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I put this article on Misplaced Pages:Press coverage 2019 and "This talk page has been mentioned by a media organization":ed it on six article talkpages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
There's plenty of us miss Jytdog, and yet this sort of thing continues, increasingly unchecked. Plenty of them would have rejoiced at his block. Mramoeba (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Category: